Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 1) [2024] FCA 1275

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd (No 1) [2024] FCA 1275

The appointment of receivers to the property of Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton is necessary and desirable under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to protect the interests of investors, as the available evidence demonstrates substantial unexplained transactions, potential misapplication of investor funds, and the complexity of tracing assets, with asset preservation orders considered insufficient to secure identification and preservation of assets. The extension of the travel restraint order against Mr McWilliams is also justified due to his centrality to the ASIC investigation and the need to ensure his availability, balancing the seriousness of the interference with personal...

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 2 Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 3 Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 4 Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 5 Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 6 Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: ALAMMC Developments 7 Pty Ltd; Eighth Defendant: Harvey Madison Capital Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: SDAMF 2 Pty Ltd; Tenth Defendant: SDAMF 3 Pty Ltd; Eleventh Defendant: SDAMF 4 Pty Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: Coral Coast Mutual Pty Ltd; Thirteenth Defendant: Mortgage Mutual Fund Pty Ltd; Fourteenth Defendant: David George McWilliams; Fifteenth Defendant: Laura Mary Fullarton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers and Extension of Travel Restraint Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Asset Preservation Orders, Receivership, Financial Services Licensing, Breach of Director's Duties, Unlicensed Conduct of Financial Services Business, Fraud, Interim Relief, Evidence – Hearsay, Travel Restraints
Corporations Law Regulatory Law Asset Preservation Orders Receivership Financial Services Licensing Breach of Director's Duties Unlicensed Conduct of Financial Services Business Fraud +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 21
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd

First Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 2 Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 3 Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 4 Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 5 Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 6 Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

ALAMMC Developments 7 Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Harvey Madison Capital Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

SDAMF 2 Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant

SDAMF 3 Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

SDAMF 4 Pty Ltd

Eleventh Defendant

Coral Coast Mutual Pty Ltd

Twelfth Defendant

Mortgage Mutual Fund Pty Ltd

Thirteenth Defendant

David George McWilliams

Fourteenth Defendant

Laura Mary Fullarton

Fifteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receivers and Extension of Travel Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment of receivers to the property of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth defendants is necessary or desirable under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the protection of investors during investigation by ASIC
  2. 2 Whether current asset preservation orders are sufficient to protect investor interests without appointment of receivers
  3. 3 Whether extension of travel restraint order over Mr McWilliams is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of receivers to the property of Mr McWilliams and Ms Fullarton is necessary and desirable under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to protect the interests of investors, as the available evidence demonstrates substantial unexplained transactions, potential misapplication of investor funds, and the complexity of tracing assets, with asset preservation orders considered insufficient to secure identification and preservation of assets. The extension of the travel restraint order against Mr McWilliams is also justified due to his centrality to the ASIC investigation and the need to ensure his availability, balancing the seriousness of the interference with personal...

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Appointment of Andrew Fielding and Helen Newman of BDO as joint and several receivers of the property of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth defendants, with specified powers and reporting requirements.
  • Receivers' costs and expenses to be payable from property of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth defendants.