Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 2081

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 2081

The interlocutory application was dismissed because Westpac had not been served in a manner requiring its attendance, so orders could not be made against it in its absence; the Court had no identified power to direct ASIC to correspond with or instruct Westpac, and in any event ASIC was not obliged to act without evidence that proposed withdrawals fell within the carve out; and no cause of action or breach supporting damages against ASIC was identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application Concerning Freezing Order and Restrictions on Bank Accounts / Urgent Interlocutory Application Filed 28 November 2019 by the Fourth Defendant, Heard and Determined on 29 November 2019
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs orders.
Legal Topics
['application to Vary Freezing Order' 'orders Sought Against Non Party Bank' 'orders Sought to Direct Plaintiff to Intervene With Bank' 'unregistered Managed Investment Scheme' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['application to Vary Freezing Order' 'orders Sought Against Non Party Bank' 'orders Sought to Direct Plaintiff to Intervene With Bank' 'unregistered Managed Investment Scheme' 'costs']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application Concerning Freezing Order and Restrictions on Bank Accounts / Urgent Interlocutory Application Filed 28 November 2019 by the Fourth Defendant, Heard and Determined on 29 November 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders should be made against Westpac Banking Corporation, a non-party bank, to remove restrictions on accounts when it had not been served in the manner prescribed by the Rules.' 'Whether the Court had power to order ASIC to direct or correspond with Westpac to remove restrictions on accounts imposed in response to the 21 November Orders.' 'Whether damages should be ordered against ASIC.' 'What costs order should be made on the interlocutory application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was dismissed because Westpac had not been served in a manner requiring its attendance, so orders could not be made against it in its absence; the Court had no identified power to direct ASIC to correspond with or instruct Westpac, and in any event ASIC was not obliged to act without evidence that proposed withdrawals fell within the carve out; and no cause of action or breach supporting damages against ASIC was identified.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs orders.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed 28 November 2019 be dismissed.' "The fourth defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application, to be taxed or as agreed." "As between the fourth defendant and the second, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants, the costs of the interlocutory...