Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Pappas [2006] FCA 1785

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Pappas [2006] FCA 1785

The defendant was guilty of contempt on all three charges because the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his failure to attend on 28 September 2005, his failure to make a genuine attempt to assist ASIC by answering questions on 3 February 2006, and his failure to comply with his undertaking to provide reasonable assistance on 6 June 2006 were wilful and not accidental, casual or unintentional.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Contempt Charges Arising From Failure to Comply With Court Orders and Undertakings in Relation to ASIC Examinations / Reasons for Judgment on Whether the Contempt Charges Were Proved; Penalty Deferred
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of all three contempt charges; directions to be given for submissions on penalty.
Legal Topics
['failure to Attend ASIC Examination' 'failure to Provide All Reasonable Assistance to Asic' 'breach of Undertaking to the Court' 'wilful and Contumacious Disobedience']
['practice and Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'corporations and Securities Regulation'] ['failure to Attend ASIC Examination' 'failure to Provide All Reasonable Assistance to Asic' 'breach of Undertaking to the Court' 'wilful and Contumacious Disobedience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Charges Arising From Failure to Comply With Court Orders and Undertakings in Relation to ASIC Examinations / Reasons for Judgment on Whether the Contempt Charges Were Proved; Penalty Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's failure to attend for examination on 28 September 2005 was wilful and contumacious disobedience of the Court's orders made on 16 September 2005." 'Whether the defendant failed to provide the Commission all reasonable assistance with its investigation at the examination on 3 February 2006.' 'Whether the defendant breached his undertaking to the Court given on 25 May 2006 by failing to provide the Commission all reasonable assistance at the examination on 6 June 2006.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was guilty of contempt on all three charges because the Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his failure to attend on 28 September 2005, his failure to make a genuine attempt to assist ASIC by answering questions on 3 February 2006, and his failure to comply with his undertaking to provide reasonable assistance on 6 June 2006 were wilful and not accidental, casual or unintentional.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of all three contempt charges; directions to be given for submissions on penalty.

Orders

  • ['The defendant should be found guilty of all three charges.' 'Directions will be given for the parties to make submissions on the appropriate penalty.']