Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Daws [2006] FCA 723

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Daws [2006] FCA 723

The applicant failed to show that granting the interlocutory stay was necessary to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of its appeal; in particular, because the respondent undertook to withdraw the enforceable undertaking if the appeal succeeds and the court so directs, and there were no relevant public interest or uncertainty issues requiring a stay.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Respondent: Christopher John Daws
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Corporations Stay Application in Federal Court (appeal From Tribunal) / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Motion for stay refused. Costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Banning Orders, Enforceable Undertakings, Stay of Tribunal Decision, Federal Court Appeal From AAT
Corporations Law Administrative Law Banning Orders Enforceable Undertakings Stay of Tribunal Decision Federal Court Appeal From AAT

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Applicant

Christopher John Daws

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Corporations Stay Application in Federal Court (appeal From Tribunal) / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted on Tribunal's decision substituting an enforceable undertaking for a banning order pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether public interest or uncertainty justifies a stay
  3. 3 Whether the effectiveness of the appeal requires a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show that granting the interlocutory stay was necessary to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of its appeal; in particular, because the respondent undertook to withdraw the enforceable undertaking if the appeal succeeds and the court so directs, and there were no relevant public interest or uncertainty issues requiring a stay.

Court Disposition

Motion for stay refused. Costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion for stay is refused.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the motion, to be taxed if not agreed.