Australian Securities and Investments Commission v One Tech Media Limited [2016] FCA 1580

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v One Tech Media Limited [2016] FCA 1580

The application for a Court direction was refused because ASIC provided sufficient advance notice that the examination of the applicants would be conducted by the Italian regulator, CONSOB, under its own laws and not by ASIC via video link with Melbourne legal representatives. There was no misleading conduct by ASIC, and the applicants had adequate notice of the need to make their own arrangements with CONSOB.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Procedural Direction / Interlocutory Application Oral Application for Direction
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['application for Direction' 'examination of Witnesses' 'cross Border Regulatory Cooperation' 'disclosure and Examination Procedures']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['application for Direction' 'examination of Witnesses' 'cross Border Regulatory Cooperation' 'disclosure and Examination Procedures']

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

Application for Procedural Direction / Interlocutory Application Oral Application for Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should direct ASIC to request the Italian regulator (CONSOB) to withdraw and reissue examination notices to the fourth and seventh defendants']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a Court direction was refused because ASIC provided sufficient advance notice that the examination of the applicants would be conducted by the Italian regulator, CONSOB, under its own laws and not by ASIC via video link with Melbourne legal representatives. There was no misleading conduct by ASIC, and the applicants had adequate notice of the need to make their own arrangements with CONSOB.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The oral application made on behalf of the fourth and seventh defendants to the Court on 14 December 2016 be refused.' 'Costs reserved.']