Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey [2006] FCA 366

Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey [2006] FCA 366

The Commission had commenced and was carrying out a relevant investigation, and the evidence showed urgency, substantial public investor losses, a good arguable case of unlawful conduct by the first to fourth defendants, and transactions regarded as irregular and potentially designed to defeat creditors. Although ex parte receivership orders were not warranted, interim asset preservation orders and travel restraint orders were justified to protect aggrieved persons until the application could return for a contested hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceeding; Ex Parte Application Under S 1323(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Interim Ex Parte Application for Receivership Orders, Alternatively Interim Asset Preservation Orders, and Interim Orders Prohibiting the First to Fourth Defendants From Leaving Australia
Outcome
Interim asset preservation orders and travel restraint orders made ex parte; receivership orders not made.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Orders' 'interim Asset Preservation Orders' 'receivers' 'asic Investigation' 'travel Restraint Orders']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['ex Parte Orders' 'interim Asset Preservation Orders' 'receivers' 'asic Investigation' 'travel Restraint Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Proceeding; Ex Parte Application Under S 1323(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Interim Ex Parte Application for Receivership Orders, Alternatively Interim Asset Preservation Orders, and Interim Orders Prohibiting the First to Fourth Defendants From Leaving Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim receivers should be appointed to the property of the defendants on an ex parte basis.' 'Whether interim asset preservation orders should be made against the defendants pending a contested hearing.' 'Whether interim orders should be made prohibiting the first to fourth defendants from leaving Australia.' 'Whether the Commission had established the jurisdictional foundation for interim orders under s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission had commenced and was carrying out a relevant investigation, and the evidence showed urgency, substantial public investor losses, a good arguable case of unlawful conduct by the first to fourth defendants, and transactions regarded as irregular and potentially designed to defeat creditors. Although ex parte receivership orders were not warranted, interim asset preservation orders and travel restraint orders were justified to protect aggrieved persons until the application could return for a contested hearing.

Court Disposition

Interim asset preservation orders and travel restraint orders made ex parte; receivership orders not made.

Orders

  • ['The Plaintiff has leave to file in Court its Originating Process dated 29 March 2006.' 'In the first instance, service of the Originating Process be dispensed with.' 'In the first instance, the Originating Process be returnable instanter.' 'Each of the Defendants, by themselves, their servants, agents or...