High Court of Australia

Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16

15 May 2019

Case Number: M136/2018

Before

Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJ

Catchwords

Administrative law (Cth) – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Nature and scope of review – Where appellant's convictions spent under Pt VIIC of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Where Div 3 of Pt VIIC of Crimes Act prohibited Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") from taking into consideration spent convictions in deciding to make banning order – Where review of decision of ASIC by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Where s 85ZZH(c) of Crimes Act provided that Div 3 of Pt VIIC does not apply to Commonwealth tribunal – Whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal entitled to take into consideration on review spent convictions which ASIC was prohibited from taking into consideration.

Words and phrases – "banning order", "fit and proper person", "function of the original decision-maker", "review", "spent conviction", "stand in the shoes of the decision-maker".

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 25, 43.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Pt VIIC, ss 85ZM, 85ZV, 85ZW, 85ZZH(c).

National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) – ss 80, 327.
PDF   RTF



PDF MD5: 4bbaa867658620625ebdcc7b75d84bbb
RTF MD5: 709e1f5d1e5ec0eb3f679564afab4f81