Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fast Access Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 243

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fast Access Finance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 243

The respondents contravened civil penalty provisions by engaging in unlicensed credit activity through a scheme designed to circumvent statutory protections, warranting civil penalties substantially greater than the excess interest charged, with the company that designed the scheme (FAF) being most culpable.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Respondent: Fast Access Finance Pty Ltd ACN 078 233 084; Second Respondent: Fast Access Finance (Beenleigh) Pty Ltd ACN 095 585 292; Third Respondent: Fast Access Finance (Burleigh Heads) Pty Ltd ACN 104 904 225
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Penalty Proceeding / Post Trial, Penalty Determination
Outcome
Penalties imposed on all respondents for proven contraventions; submissions to be heard regarding formal orders and costs.
Legal Topics
Unlicensed Credit Activity, Civil Penalties, Consumer Protection, Franchise Liability
Consumer Law Corporations Law Regulatory Law Unlicensed Credit Activity Civil Penalties Consumer Protection Franchise Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Applicant

Fast Access Finance Pty Ltd ACN 078 233 084

First Respondent

Fast Access Finance (Beenleigh) Pty Ltd ACN 095 585 292

Second Respondent

Fast Access Finance (Burleigh Heads) Pty Ltd ACN 104 904 225

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Penalty Proceeding / Post Trial, Penalty Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in credit activity without an Australian credit licence
  2. 2 Appropriateness of civil penalties for unlicensed credit activity
  3. 3 Relative culpability among respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents contravened civil penalty provisions by engaging in unlicensed credit activity through a scheme designed to circumvent statutory protections, warranting civil penalties substantially greater than the excess interest charged, with the company that designed the scheme (FAF) being most culpable.

Court Disposition

Penalties imposed on all respondents for proven contraventions; submissions to be heard regarding formal orders and costs.

Orders

  • FAF Beenleigh Pty Ltd: penalty of $80,000
  • FAF Burleigh Heads Pty Ltd: penalty of $250,000