Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16 (15 May 2019) (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
16700
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16700,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16 (15 May 2019) (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and 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”.