Gordon v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2002] FCA 1155

Gordon v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2002] FCA 1155

The delegate's decision to continue the s 837 hearings was not a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act because it merely maintained a process and did not determine rights, liabilities or any substantive issue. In any event, the sequence and content of the notices to the applicants and to GWFS did not show that the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment on Application Challenging ASIC Delegate's Proposed Conduct of Hearings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'natural Justice' 'asic Banning Order Hearings' 'reviewable Decision Under the ADJR Act']
['administrative Law' 'corporations Law'] ['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'natural Justice' 'asic Banning Order Hearings' 'reviewable Decision Under the ADJR Act']

Source-derived case record

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 for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Reasons for Judgment on Application Challenging ASIC Delegate's Proposed Conduct of Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the delegate's decision to continue to conduct hearings under s 837 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act." "Whether the delegate's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in relation to proposed hearings to determine whether banning orders should be made against the applicants."]

Ratio Decidendi

The delegate's decision to continue the s 837 hearings was not a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act because it merely maintained a process and did not determine rights, liabilities or any substantive issue. In any event, the sequence and content of the notices to the applicants and to GWFS did not show that the delegate had reached any higher level of satisfaction than that required to enliven s 837(2), and a fair minded person would not reasonably suspect that she might fail to approach the applicants' hearings with a fair and unprejudiced mind.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed with costs.' 'The time from which any appeal from the decision may be brought is to run from the date of the reasons for judgment.']