Huber v Chua Min Wee & Ors - High Court of Singapore (2015-16)

Provided expert reports to the High Court of Singapore on behalf of two defendants instructed by TSMP Law Corporation (Singapore).

This case involved contested cross border claims of beneficial ownership of shares in a raft of companies registered in various tax havens and the effect of breaches of the corporations law and impact of bankruptcy under Australian law on Singapore Court processes.


ASIC v Narain; ASIC v Citrofresh International Ltd (2007-2008)

Acted for the defendant, a director of Citrofresh International Ltd at trial in the Federal Court, on appeal to the full Federal Court and on appeal to the High Court. This was an action by ASIC against the director for his involvement in announcements made by the company on ASX, which materially affected the company’s share price.

ASIC’s claims relate to the provisions under the Corporations Act concerning market misconduct such as market manipulation, false trading, market rigging, dissemination of information to the stock exchange, false and misleading statements, fraudulent inducement to deal, and insider trading. 

Appeared at first instance, on appeal to the full court and on special leave to the High Court.


ASIC v Money for Living (administrators appointed); Haslam v Money For Living

Appeared for ASIC, in winding up the scheme and in subsequent proceedings concerning disputes over the title of properties offered as security for reverse mortgage lending. The case was an early use of ASIC's powers to bring representative proceedings under s50 of the ASIC Act.

The scheme Money For Living Scheme was a scheme promoted to elderly Australians involving reverse mortgage style products. In return for selling the equity in their homes to Money For Living, the owners were provided with a life tenancy in their homes and an income stream. Investors were misled in relation to the value of the income stream, the nature of their remaining interests in their homes, and their rights and entitlements. The scheme was judged to be an unregistered managed investment scheme concerning interests in land. On winding up, a number of secured creditors sought to defeat the interests of property owners. 

The decision granting injunctions restraining the defendant directors is here. 

The decision concerning the nature of the claims of the scheme participants as tenants in possession is here

The decision concerning competing interests of financiers with registered mortgages and the equitable interests of tenants for life in possession is here


VCA & Ors v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

Lead counsel for APRA in this landmark decision of the AAT concerning prudential regulation and the disqualification of responsible officers. The case concerned the conduct of the Trustee and responsible officers and whether directors had breached covenants and acted in the best interests of members. 


ASIC v GDK Financial Solutions Pty Ltd; Western Retirement Village Management Pty Ltd v ASIC

Senior counsel for ASIC in the Federal Court on application to wind up two unregistered managed investment schemes known as the Mews Retirement Village and Rosedale Retirement Village and in related proceedings. Also acted for ASIC on appeal to the Full Federal Court and before the High Court.

The decision considered closely the powers of a court appointed receiver to wind up the schemes under the provisions of the corporations act and under the inherent powers of the court. 

The decision of the federal court concerning the powers of the receiver is here

The decision winding up the promoter of the scheme is here

In related proceedings, Western Retirement Village Management Pty Ltd v ASIC the appellant promoter of the scheme unsuccessfully appealed the appointment of the receivers, the powers of sale and the scope of the property of the scheme to the full federal court. 

In Rosedale Action Inc. v Hon Justice Finkelstein in the High Court, resisting an application for orders nisi under section 75(v) of the Constitution directed to a judge of the Federal Court. A party asserting rights under scheme management agreements unsuccessfully sought injunctive relief compelling the trial judge to revisit the appointment of the receiver.