Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 v IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 [2006] FCA 583

Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 v IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 [2006] FCA 583

The evidence established that each defendant contravened ss 911A and 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by engaging in financial services business and holding out without the required licence; the second and third defendants were knowingly concerned in the first defendant's conduct.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719; Second Defendant: John Pizzey; Third Defendant: Michael James Andersen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declarations made and permanent injunctions granted against the defendants; insurance contracts declared void; defendants to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Australian Financial Services Licence, Contravention of Corporations Act Sections 911 a and 911 C, Injunctions, Holding Out, Void Insurance Contracts
Corporations Law Financial Services Regulation Australian Financial Services Licence Contravention of Corporations Act Sections 911 a and 911 C Injunctions Holding Out Void Insurance Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719

First Defendant

John Pizzey

Second Defendant

Michael James Andersen

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants contravened sections 911A and 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by providing financial product advice and dealing in insurance products without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence
  2. 2 Whether the defendants held out that they acted on behalf of Lloyds of London when that was not the case
  3. 3 Whether the second and third defendants were knowingly concerned in the first defendant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that each defendant contravened ss 911A and 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by engaging in financial services business and holding out without the required licence; the second and third defendants were knowingly concerned in the first defendant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Declarations made and permanent injunctions granted against the defendants; insurance contracts declared void; defendants to pay costs.

Orders

  • Each defendant is permanently restrained from conducting a financial services business by providing product advice without an Australian Financial Services Licence.
  • Each defendant is permanently restrained from conducting a financial services business by dealing in financial products without an Australian Financial Services Licence.