Winter, G.R. v Australian Securities Commission & Anor [1995] FCA 74

Winter, G.R. v Australian Securities Commission & Anor [1995] FCA 74

The application failed because the fact that the delegate read the principal documents and statement of areas of concern before the proposed s.600(3) hearing, and then expressed a preliminary and tentative view in response to an enquiry from the applicant's counsel, did not give fair minded parties or observers a reasonable apprehension that she might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the hearing. The views were expressly tentative and based only on material already supplied to the applicant. The matters identified in the documents were capable of being relevant to the broad inquiry under s.600(3), and it was premature to prohibit the hearing merely because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['australian Securities Commission Hearing' 'director Disqualification From Managing a Corporation' 'natural Justice' 'perceived Bias' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness']
['corporations Law' 'administrative Law'] ['australian Securities Commission Hearing' 'director Disqualification From Managing a Corporation' 'natural Justice' 'perceived Bias' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'procedural Fairness']

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 for an Order of Review / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ASC or its delegate would breach the rules of natural justice by conducting the proposed hearing because of perceived bias.' 'Whether the delegate was disqualified because she read the principal documents and statement of areas of concern before the hearing and expressed a preliminary and tentative view on the merits.' 'Whether matters not relevant to a decision under s.600(3) of the Corporations Law were likely to be taken into account at the hearing.' 'What matters may be considered by the ASC when deciding whether it is appropriate to serve a notice prohibiting a person from managing a corporation under s.600(3).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the fact that the delegate read the principal documents and statement of areas of concern before the proposed s.600(3) hearing, and then expressed a preliminary and tentative view in response to an enquiry from the applicant's counsel, did not give fair minded parties or observers a reasonable apprehension that she might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the hearing. The views were expressly tentative and based only on material already supplied to the applicant. The matters identified in the documents were capable of being relevant to the broad inquiry under s.600(3), and it was premature to prohibit the hearing merely because the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an order of review be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the respondents costs to be taxed.']