Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2012] HCA 39Forrest
vAustralian Securities and Investments Commission
Judges:
French CJ
Gummow J
Hayne J
Heydon J
Kiefel J
Legislative References:
Corporations Act 2001 - The Act
Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 - The Act
Trade Practices Act 1974 - s 52
Judgment date: 2 October 2012
Order
In each matter:
1. Appeal allowed with costs.
2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 18 February 2011 as varied on 20 May 2011 and, in their place, order that the appeal by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to that court be dismissed with costs.
3. Special leave to cross-appeal granted, treated as instituted and heard instanter, and dismissed with costs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (No 5) (2009) 264 ALR 201 .
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 .
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 372-374 [17].
(2009) 264 ALR 201 at 209 [12].
(1889) 14 App Cas 337.
(1995) 183 CLR 563 at 578 per Brennan, Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; [1995] HCA 68 .
Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685 at 697 701 704 and 709; Banque Commerciale SA, en Liquidation v Akhill Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 285 ; [1990] HCA 11 .
(1916) 22 CLR 490 at 517 ; [1916] HCA 81 .
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 371 [16].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 407 [117]; see also at 430 [214]-[215], 431 [218].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 408-409 [126], 430 [215], 431 [218].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 421-422 [176], 430 [215], 432-433 [226]-[229].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 422 [177], 430 [215], 431 [218].
(2009) 264 ALR 201 at 277 [343].
(2009) 264 ALR 201 at 214 [49].
Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 at 86-87 [105]; [2000] HCA 12 .
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 411 [135], 419 [161], 421-422 [176], 430 [212], 432-433 [226]-[229].
Campomar (2000) 202 CLR 45 at 86-87 [105].
Campomar (2000) 202 CLR 45 at 86-87 [105].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 411 [135], 430 [212], 432-433 [226]-[229].
See above at [12].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 412 [137].
(2009) 264 ALR 201 at 298 [459].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 415 [147].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 415 [147].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 411-412 [136].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 411 [135]-[136].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 430 [215].
(2010) 190 FCR 364 at 425 [189].
(2011) 190 FCR 364 at 406 [116].
See, for example, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar (2012) 86 ALJR 522 ; 286 ALR 501 ; [2012] HCA 17 .
It is convenient to adopt the majority judgment's statement of the background to the appeals and to use the abbreviations of statutory and corporate names which it employs.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 at 406 [116].
See further at [94].
See below at [104]-[108].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 at 422 [177].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (No 5) (2009) 264 ALR 201 at 341 [684].
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82 at 88 per Bowen CJ, Lockhart and Fitzgerald JJ. This has been followed by Toohey J sitting in the Federal Court: James v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 347 at 372.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 at 406 [116].
See below at [102]-[103].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (No 5) (2009) 264 ALR 201 at 277 [343].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (No 5) (2009) 264 ALR 201 at 214 [49].
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 at 411 [136].
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 at 321 [33]; [2009] HCA 25 .
See above at [94].
It is possible that the Full Court overlooked the need for ASIC to prove its case in view of passages in which it spoke of s 1041H making a reallocation of the risk of loss arising from erroneous statements and placing that risk on the respondent: see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 364 at 406 [114]-[115]. What the Full Court said may be true, but it does not entail any reversal of the onus of proof.
Wolverhampton Corp v Emmons [1901] 1 QB 515 at 524-525.