Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Keech & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 683

Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Keech & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 683

ASIC established prima facie that the requirements of s600, including procedural requirements, were satisfied and that the First Defendant had received notice and an opportunity to show cause. The evidence showed the First Defendant was managing the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants despite the prohibition and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Interim Injunction Under S1324 of the Corporations Law to Restrain Breach of S600 / Interim Ex Parte Application; Interim Injunction Granted
Outcome
Interim injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['disqualification From Managing Corporations' 'asic Notice Under S600' 'interim Injunction' 'ex Parte Relief' 'managing a Corporation Under S91 A']
['corporations Law' 'equity'] ['disqualification From Managing Corporations' 'asic Notice Under S600' 'interim Injunction' 'ex Parte Relief' 'managing a Corporation Under S91 A']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Interim Injunction Under S1324 of the Corporations Law to Restrain Breach of S600 / Interim Ex Parte Application; Interim Injunction Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ASIC had established prima facie satisfaction of the requirements of s600 of the Corporations Law, including procedural requirements, for issuing a notice prohibiting the First Defendant from managing a corporation.' 'Whether the Court should grant interim injunctive relief under s1324 of the Corporations Law to restrain the First Defendant from managing the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants.' 'Whether the interim injunction should operate immediately.']

Ratio Decidendi

ASIC established prima facie that the requirements of s600, including procedural requirements, were satisfied and that the First Defendant had received notice and an opportunity to show cause. The evidence showed the First Defendant was managing the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants despite the prohibition and without seeking leave under s600(5). The delegate's report disclosed matters congruent with s600 and supporting public interest enforcement. Interim injunctive relief under s1324 was therefore appropriate and should operate forthwith.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['The First Defendant is, without leave of the Court, prohibited from continuing to manage, or take any part in or be in any way (directly or indirectly) concerned in managing, the Second, Third and/or Fourth Defendants.' 'The First Defendant is, without leave of the Court, prohibited from dealing with or disposing...