Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Gray [2024] FCA 79

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Gray [2024] FCA 79

Permanent injunctions were warranted because CDB and Creditnet were not APRA-regulated entities, were not authorised or licensed under s 9(3) of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth), and had no s 11 determination or APRA consent, yet the evidence showed they carried on banking or financial business, issued or sought to issue...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Originating Application by APRA for Permanent Injunctive Relief Concerning Alleged Unlawful Banking Business and Use of Restricted Banking Words / Final Hearing; Respondent Did Not Appear; Permanent Injunctions and Costs Orders Made
Outcome
Application granted; permanent restraints and costs order made against the respondent.
Legal Topics
['unauthorised Banking Business' 'restricted Words Under the Banking Act' 'permanent Injunctions' 'apra Enforcement' 'service of Originating Documents']
['banking and Financial Institutions' 'administrative and Regulatory Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['unauthorised Banking Business' 'restricted Words Under the Banking Act' 'permanent Injunctions' 'apra Enforcement' 'service of Originating Documents']

Source-derived case record

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

Originating Application by APRA for Permanent Injunctive Relief Concerning Alleged Unlawful Banking Business and Use of Restricted Banking Words / Final Hearing; Respondent Did Not Appear; Permanent Injunctions and Costs Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether CDB and Creditnet were authorised or licensed to carry on banking business in Australia under the Banking Act 1959 (Cth).' "Whether CDB and Creditnet carried on banking business or financial business and used restricted words such as 'bank', 'banker' or 'banking' without APRA's consent." 'Whether Mr Gray operated CDB and Creditnet so that injunctive orders should be directed to him.' 'Whether permanent injunctions under s 65A of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) had utility and should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Permanent injunctions were warranted because CDB and Creditnet were not APRA-regulated entities, were not authorised or licensed under s 9(3) of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth), and had no s 11 determination or APRA consent, yet the evidence showed they carried on banking or financial business, issued or sought to issue financial instruments, and used restricted banking words. Mr Gray operated CDB and Creditnet and had continued the conduct despite repeated cease and desist letters, so orders directed to him had utility in protecting the public, deterring similar conduct and upholding APRA's regulatory role.

Court Disposition

Application granted; permanent restraints and costs order made against the respondent.

Orders

  • ["For the purposes of the orders, 'purported bank' means 'Commercial Development Bank', 'Creditnet Bank Internationale', any derivations thereof, or any other body described as a 'bank' which does not have APRA consent under s 66 of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth), is not in possession of authority under s 9 of the...