Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wealth & Risk Management Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 477

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wealth & Risk Management Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 477

The Court determined that, based on the affidavit evidence of serious compliance failures, inadequate remedial steps, and ongoing risks to clients, there was an appreciable risk of contravention of ss 961L and 912A (for WRM) and ss 911A and 911B (for JECA). Accordingly, it was appropriate to grant interlocutory injunctions restraining offers of cash payments and unlicensed financial product advice by the defendants, as the statutory power was intended for public protection and deterrence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Corporations/interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted, costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'best Interests Duties' 'financial Advice Compliance' 'unlicensed Financial Services' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['corporations Law' 'financial Services Regulation' 'commercial Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'best Interests Duties' 'financial Advice Compliance' 'unlicensed Financial Services' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Corporations/interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants contravened best interests and compliance obligations under the Corporations Act' 'Whether JECA carried on financial services business without licence' 'Whether misleading or deceptive conduct occurred in connection with financial services' 'Whether the Court should grant interlocutory injunctions to restrain offers of cash rebates and unlicensed conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that, based on the affidavit evidence of serious compliance failures, inadequate remedial steps, and ongoing risks to clients, there was an appreciable risk of contravention of ss 961L and 912A (for WRM) and ss 911A and 911B (for JECA). Accordingly, it was appropriate to grant interlocutory injunctions restraining offers of cash payments and unlicensed financial product advice by the defendants, as the statutory power was intended for public protection and deterrence.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted, costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Each defendant restrained from making offers of cash payments (including cash rebates) to prospective retail clients in connection with financial advice, superannuation switching, or insurance product purchase.' 'Defendants restrained from entering into or offering Cash Rebate Agreements, Emergency Debt Relief...