Australian Securities & Investments Commission, in the matter of QLS Superannuation Pty Ltd (ACN 059 795 998) v Parker [2002] FCA 196

Australian Securities & Investments Commission, in the matter of QLS Superannuation Pty Ltd (ACN 059 795 998) v Parker [2002] FCA 196

It was at least arguable on the pleadings that the second to fourth defendants, as directors of a trustee company, breached their statutory duty of care and diligence under s 232(4) Corporations Law in circumstances where they approved a substantial commercial loan without adequate lending procedures or experience,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim
Outcome
application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
["directors' Duties" "trustees' Duties" 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'summary Dismissal Applications']
['corporations Law'] ["directors' Duties" "trustees' Duties" 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'summary Dismissal Applications']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second to fourth defendants as directors of QLS Superannuation Pty Ltd breached their statutory duty of care and diligence under s 232(4) of the Corporations Law in relation to the approval and making of a $2,500,000 commercial loan resulting in loss of trust moneys.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was at least arguable on the pleadings that the second to fourth defendants, as directors of a trustee company, breached their statutory duty of care and diligence under s 232(4) Corporations Law in circumstances where they approved a substantial commercial loan without adequate lending procedures or experience, exposing a significant portion of trust assets to risk, and thus the ASIC's case should not be struck out summarily.

Court Disposition

application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • ['The notices of motion filed by the second, third and fourth defendants on 17 January 2002, 18 January 2002 and 21 January 2002 respectively be dismissed.' "The second, third and fourth defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the motions to be taxed."]