Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Roussi [1999] FCA 618

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Roussi [1999] FCA 618

The first and second respondents were responsible for numerous breaches of the Corporations Law, consumer complaints, company failures and unpaid creditors, had shown complete disdain for their responsibilities and creditors' interests, and had engaged in knowing and wilful conduct warranting strong protective orders. The second respondent's slightly lesser role did not justify a shorter period, but was reflected by making her 10-year disqualification commence immediately while the first respondent's 10-year disqualification would commence from his discharge from bankruptcy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 230 of the Corporations Law for Orders Prohibiting Respondents From Managing Any Corporation / Reasons for Judgment and Orders; Defences Withdrawn and Case Concerned Length of Disqualification; Case Against Third Respondent Not Proceeded With
Outcome
First and second respondents prohibited from managing a corporation for 10 years and ordered to pay the applicant's costs; case against the third respondent was not proceeded with.
Legal Topics
['disqualification From Managing Corporations' 'duties of Company Officers' 'insolvent Managing a Corporation' 'corporate Compliance Failures' 'protection of Consumers and Creditors']
['corporations Law'] ['disqualification From Managing Corporations' 'duties of Company Officers' 'insolvent Managing a Corporation' 'corporate Compliance Failures' 'protection of Consumers and Creditors']

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

Application Pursuant to Section 230 of the Corporations Law for Orders Prohibiting Respondents From Managing Any Corporation / Reasons for Judgment and Orders; Defences Withdrawn and Case Concerned Length of Disqualification; Case Against Third Respondent Not Proceeded With

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second respondents should be prohibited from managing a corporation under section 230 of the Corporations Law.' 'Whether differing periods of disqualification should be imposed because of the different roles played by the first and second respondents in the conduct and management of the companies.' 'Whether the first respondent acted in breach of section 229 by managing or continuing to manage companies while an undischarged bankrupt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first and second respondents were responsible for numerous breaches of the Corporations Law, consumer complaints, company failures and unpaid creditors, had shown complete disdain for their responsibilities and creditors' interests, and had engaged in knowing and wilful conduct warranting strong protective orders. The second respondent's slightly lesser role did not justify a shorter period, but was reflected by making her 10-year disqualification commence immediately while the first respondent's 10-year disqualification would commence from his discharge from bankruptcy.

Court Disposition

First and second respondents prohibited from managing a corporation for 10 years and ordered to pay the applicant's costs; case against the third respondent was not proceeded with.

Orders

  • ['The first and second respondents be prohibited from managing a corporation for a period of 10 years, with immediate effect in the case of the second respondent, and with effect from his discharge from bankruptcy in the case of the first respondent.' "The first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs."]