Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Murphy [2024] FCA 861

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Murphy [2024] FCA 861

Leave to discontinue was granted because none of the matters raised by Mr Murphy suggested any reason why ASIC should not be allowed to discontinue, and discontinuance together with the lifting of interlocutory orders was advantageous to him. The order that each party bear its own costs was appropriate because ASIC...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Discontinue Proceeding Under R 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Discontinue; Reasons for Orders Made on 29 July 2024
Outcome
ASIC was granted leave to discontinue the proceeding against the first and second defendants; asset preservation orders and interlocutory injunctions were vacated; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'leave to Discontinue' 'costs on Discontinuance' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection'] ['discontinuance of Proceedings' 'leave to Discontinue' 'costs on Discontinuance' 'asset Preservation Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions']

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

Application for Leave to Discontinue Proceeding Under R 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Discontinue; Reasons for Orders Made on 29 July 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ASIC should be granted leave under r 26.12(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to discontinue the proceeding against Mr Murphy.' 'Whether discontinuance should occur on the basis that ASIC and the defendants each bear their own costs.' 'Whether existing asset preservation orders and interlocutory injunctions should be vacated.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to discontinue was granted because none of the matters raised by Mr Murphy suggested any reason why ASIC should not be allowed to discontinue, and discontinuance together with the lifting of interlocutory orders was advantageous to him. The order that each party bear its own costs was appropriate because ASIC had reasonably commenced and pursued the proceeding, had earlier established a prima facie case for injunctive relief, and discontinued because further pursuit was not appropriate in light of findings about Mr Murphy's mental state rather than because its case was weak.

Court Disposition

ASIC was granted leave to discontinue the proceeding against the first and second defendants; asset preservation orders and interlocutory injunctions were vacated; each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 26.12(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the plaintiff (ASIC) be granted leave to discontinue the proceeding against the first and second defendants (on the basis that ASIC and the first and second defendants are each to bear their own costs of the proceeding) by filing a notice of...