Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Kyriackou [2007] FCA 1781

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Kyriackou [2007] FCA 1781

APM, the principal company alleged to run the scheme, is now in liquidation and under control of a court-appointed liquidator, so further or continuing restraining orders against it are unnecessary. For other corporate defendants, given insufficient evidence of their participation and involvement in any scheme, the drastic step of appointing provisional liquidators is unwarranted. The status quo and asset preservation can be achieved by restraining only the relevant trading companies from disposing of assets and financial records until trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Corporations (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Relief (appointment of Provisional Liquidators, Injunctions)
Outcome
Interlocutory application partly granted; restraining orders made against certain defendants; application for provisional liquidators otherwise dismissed; costs reserved; proceeding adjourned for directions.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'appointment of Provisional Liquidator' 'managed Investment Scheme' 'preservation of Assets']
['corporations Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'appointment of Provisional Liquidator' 'managed Investment Scheme' 'preservation of Assets']

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

Corporations (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Relief (appointment of Provisional Liquidators, Injunctions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were involved in an unregistered managed investment scheme' 'Whether interlocutory relief and appointment of provisional liquidators should be granted' 'Whether restraining orders or injunctions over defendant property or records are necessary']

Ratio Decidendi

APM, the principal company alleged to run the scheme, is now in liquidation and under control of a court-appointed liquidator, so further or continuing restraining orders against it are unnecessary. For other corporate defendants, given insufficient evidence of their participation and involvement in any scheme, the drastic step of appointing provisional liquidators is unwarranted. The status quo and asset preservation can be achieved by restraining only the relevant trading companies from disposing of assets and financial records until trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application partly granted; restraining orders made against certain defendants; application for provisional liquidators otherwise dismissed; costs reserved; proceeding adjourned for directions.

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 and 2 of 11 July 2007 set aside.' 'Third, fourth, and sixth defendants restrained from parting with, encumbering or disposing of assets or property until further order.' 'Third, fourth, and sixth defendants restrained from disposing of, destroying, amending, altering or parting with possession of books of...