Most Recent
A judge has removed a liquidator from the winding up of a Victorian cabinetry business, finding he failed to act honestly by settling unfair preference claims with tax agencies without disclosing key information.
A judge did not need to recuse himself from deciding the penalty in ASIC's case against Sunshine Loans because his earlier adverse credit findings — far from giving rise to bias concerns — were relevant to the task, the regulator has told the High Court.
The High Court will hear an appeal by Sunshine Loans, which centres on a judge's recusal in the corporate regulator's case over unauthorised fees.
The common practice of splitting hearings on questions of liability and penalty may become “completely untenable” when there are credit issues, if the High Court upholds a recent recusal decision, a judge has said.
Payday lender Sunshine Loans has lost an appeal after it was ruled liable for “wrongheaded” conduct, with an appeals court finding that counsel showed an “egregious failure” to confine the case to the real issues.
Fortrend Securities has appealed a finding that it breached the Fair Work Act in withholding the bonuses of two financial advisors who jumped to rival Shaw & Partners.
Fortrend Securities breached the Fair Work Act in withholding the bonuses of two financial advisors who jumped to rival Shaw & Partners, a court has ruled.
The Full Court is set to weigh in on whether judges who make adverse findings on credibility during the liability phase of a hearing should recuse themselves from determining penalty, an issue which a judge has said may require a new court protocol.
The judge who presided over ASIC’s successful case against payday lender Sunshine Loans has recused himself from deciding on penalty in the matter, saying a new court protocol might be needed for when a judge makes an adverse credit finding during the liability phase of a case.
In a win for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, a judge has found that payday lender Sunshine Loans charged thousands of customers prohibited fees, issuing a scathing judgment condemning the company’s “wrongheaded” conduct.