Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1079

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1079

The Court was not convinced that ex parte relief should be granted because the main reasons justifying ex parte drastic orders were not significantly present: ASIC had been aware to some degree of the relevant conduct since May, had obtained bank statement information between July and October and further information between 23 October and 1 November 2001, so the balance after that delay did not justify making the orders without notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Corporations Proceedings Seeking Orders Under Ss 1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001 / Ex Parte Application for Interim Receiver, Injunctions, Property Restraints and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Ex parte orders were not made; leave was given for the summons to be served urgently and made returnable before the Corporations List Judge.
Legal Topics
['asic Supervision' 'ex Parte Orders' 'interim Receivers' 'injunctions' 'property Restraint Orders' 'investment Schemes']
['corporations Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['asic Supervision' 'ex Parte Orders' 'interim Receivers' 'injunctions' 'property Restraint Orders' 'investment Schemes']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Proceedings Seeking Orders Under Ss 1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001 / Ex Parte Application for Interim Receiver, Injunctions, Property Restraints and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make drastic interim orders ex parte against the defendants under ss 1323 and 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001.' "Whether ASIC's delay and prior knowledge of the defendants' conduct meant there were insufficient reasons to proceed ex parte."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not convinced that ex parte relief should be granted because the main reasons justifying ex parte drastic orders were not significantly present: ASIC had been aware to some degree of the relevant conduct since May, had obtained bank statement information between July and October and further information between 23 October and 1 November 2001, so the balance after that delay did not justify making the orders without notice.

Court Disposition

Ex parte orders were not made; leave was given for the summons to be served urgently and made returnable before the Corporations List Judge.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the summons to be served by 10 am on Friday 9 November 2001.' 'Summons returnable before the Corporations List Judge on Monday 12 November 2001 at 10 am.']