Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Robyn A C Cochrane & 1Ors [1999] NSWSC 814

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Robyn A C Cochrane & 1Ors [1999] NSWSC 814

The First Defendant breached an enforceable undertaking and statutory prohibitions by providing investment advice without a licence and failed to give notice as required. She misappropriated client funds, justifying compensatory orders. Injunctions and freezing orders were appropriate to prevent further breaches. Indemnity costs were justified given her absence and lack of opposition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Compensatory Orders
Outcome
Orders enforcing undertaking with indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
['enforceable Undertakings' 'investment Advice Regulation' 'breach of Undertaking' 'injunctions' 'compensatory Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'indemnity Costs']
['corporations Law' 'equity'] ['enforceable Undertakings' 'investment Advice Regulation' 'breach of Undertaking' 'injunctions' 'compensatory Orders' 'freezing Orders' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Civil / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Compensatory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Defendant breached an enforceable undertaking to ASIC by providing investment advice without a licence' 'Whether the First Defendant should be restrained from providing investment advice in contravention of the Corporations Law' 'Whether compensatory orders should be made for loss or damage caused by breach of undertaking and statutory provisions' 'Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the First Defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant breached an enforceable undertaking and statutory prohibitions by providing investment advice without a licence and failed to give notice as required. She misappropriated client funds, justifying compensatory orders. Injunctions and freezing orders were appropriate to prevent further breaches. Indemnity costs were justified given her absence and lack of opposition.

Court Disposition

Orders enforcing undertaking with indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration of breach of enforceable undertaking and Corporations Law provisions by First Defendant.' 'Injunction restraining First Defendant from providing investment advice in contravention of Corporations Law.' 'Order requiring First Defendant to pay $163,666.17 in compensation to Owen Sattler.' "Continuation...