Mayfair Wealth Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2022] FCAFC 170

Mayfair Wealth Partners Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2022] FCAFC 170

The appeal was dismissed except for the injunction, which was set aside due to its excessive breadth. The Full Court found that the primary judge did not err in finding the appellants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false representations in promoting investment products, nor in imposing penalties, declarations, and adverse publicity orders, except the injunction, which was overly broad and not sufficiently connected to the contravening conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Federal Court of Australia Full Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for the setting aside of the injunction; costs awarded against appellants.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'civil Penalties' 'injunctions' 'declaratory Relief' 'security Interests']
['corporations Law' 'consumer Protection Law' 'financial Regulation'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'civil Penalties' 'injunctions' 'declaratory Relief' 'security Interests']

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

Civil Appeal / Federal Court of Australia Full Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and/or made false or misleading representations in contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)' 'Whether the penalty imposed and orders made by the primary judge were appropriate and within power' 'Whether the declarations and injunctions made were appropriate in scope and form' 'Whether amendments to penalty provisions applied to the proceedings commenced prior to amendment']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed except for the injunction, which was set aside due to its excessive breadth. The Full Court found that the primary judge did not err in finding the appellants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false representations in promoting investment products, nor in imposing penalties, declarations, and adverse publicity orders, except the injunction, which was overly broad and not sufficiently connected to the contravening conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for the setting aside of the injunction; costs awarded against appellants.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to rely on Amended Notice of Appeal.' 'Injunction made in paragraph 6 of the orders made on 21 January 2022 set aside.' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.' "Appellants to pay first respondent's costs of appeal as agreed or taxed."]