Sage v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2005] FCA 1043

Sage v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2005] FCA 1043

The application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the banning order hearing was dismissed because the applicant would not be compelled to give evidence or participate in the administrative hearing, no real risk of interference with justice in the pending criminal proceedings was established, and the mere existence of contemporaneous administrative and criminal proceedings did not justify a restraint. The applicant's right to silence was not inevitably impinged, and adequate public protection would not be achieved by an enforceable undertaking in place of a banning order.

Parties
Applicant: John Gerard Sage; Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction Prior to Administrative Banning Order Hearing
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Banning Orders, Concurrent Administrative and Criminal Proceedings, Prejudice to Criminal Defence, Right to Silence
Administrative Law Corporations Law Criminal Law Interlocutory Injunctions Banning Orders Concurrent Administrative and Criminal Proceedings Prejudice to Criminal Defence Right to Silence

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gerard Sage

Applicant

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction Prior to Administrative Banning Order Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the banning order hearing should be restrained pending determination of criminal charges arising from the same facts
  2. 2 Whether the applicant’s right to silence or criminal defence would be prejudiced by the administrative proceedings
  3. 3 Whether administrative proceedings (banning order hearing) would constitute contempt of court in relation to pending criminal proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the banning order hearing was dismissed because the applicant would not be compelled to give evidence or participate in the administrative hearing, no real risk of interference with justice in the pending criminal proceedings was established, and the mere existence of contemporaneous administrative and criminal proceedings did not justify a restraint. The applicant's right to silence was not inevitably impinged, and adequate public protection would not be achieved by an enforceable undertaking in place of a banning order.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.
  • The directions hearing be adjourned to 31 August 2005.