Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 v IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719

Federal Court of Australia|2006-04-26|Before: Siopis J

THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1 The first defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that from January 2005 to May 2005 it carried on a financial services business by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 2 The first defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that from January 2005 to May 2005 it carried on a financial services business by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 3 The first defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that it held out in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 4 The first defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that it held out in its dealing in insurance products, that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 5 The second defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 6 The second defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 7 The second defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 8 The second defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who in dealing in insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 9 The third defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 10 The third defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 11 The third defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 12 The third defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in dealing in insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 13 Each of the contracts of insurance between the first defendant and those persons identified below is void: (i) National Security Systems Pty Ltd (Jarrod Hand); (ii) Roland Bradford; (iii) The Lock Man Security (Sheryl Prandl); (iv) Happy Kids Child Care Centre (Cheryl Scott); (v) The Smart Security Company Pty Ltd (Tom Mathers); (vi) Sherlocks Tavern (David Kendall); and (vii) Gosnells Football and Sportsman Club (Lee Lennon).

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1 Each of the first, second and third defendants is permanently restrained, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and employees, from conducting a financial services business in contravention of s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), by providing financial services which services concern the provision of financial product advice, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 2 Each of the first, second and third defendants is permanently restrained, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and employees, from conducting a financial services business in contravention of s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), by providing financial services which services concern dealings in financial products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 3 Each of the first, second and third defendants is permanently restrained, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and employees, from holding out, in contravention of s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), that they act on behalf of another person when that is not the case. 4 Each of the first, second and third defendants, by themselves, their servants, agents and employees, is permanently restrained from being in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the conduct by another person of a financial services business in this jurisdiction which contravenes s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) where that other person provides financial services which services concern the provision of financial product advice and or dealings in financial products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 5 The first, second and third defendants pay the plaintiff's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 37 OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 911A OF THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 (CTH)

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

AND: IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this application the plaintiff seeks declarations that the defendants contravened ss 911A, 911B and 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and permanent injunctions against the defendants. The defendants did not appear despite being served. 2 The plaintiff relies upon the affidavits of Mr Michael Stanley Darch of 5 December 2005, Ms Sheryl Prandle of 12 December 2005, Mr Tony Mathers of 7 December 2005, Mr Roland Bradford of 5 December 2005, Ms Sheryl Scott of 5 December 2005, Mr Lee Lennon of 8 December 2005 and Mr Jarrod Hand of 14 December 2005. 3 On the basis of the evidence contained in the affidavits, I am satisfied that during the period of January 2005 to May 2005, the first defendant carried on a financial services business by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. I am also satisfied that during the same period, the first defendant carried on the financial services business by dealing in insurance products without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. The insurance products referred to are the insurance policies which the first defendant promoted and sold during the period in question to Casa Security Pty Ltd, National Security Systems Pty Ltd, the Gosnells Football and Sportsman's Club, the proprietors of each of the businesses trading under the names of The Lock Man Security, Sherlock's Tavern and Happy Kids Child Care Centre respectively, and Mr Roland Bradford. These persons were issued with insurance policies which purported to show that the underwriters for the proposed policies were Lloyd's of London when in fact that was not the case. On the evidence, each of the second and third defendants was knowingly concerned and directly involved in promoting and selling the insurance policies in question, as part of the first defendant's business, and each did not have an Australian Financial Services Licence. 4 Accordingly, I am prepared to, and do, make each of the declarations which are sought in the originating process, save that in respect of each declaration referred to in the originating process, the words 'December 2004' will be replaced by the words 'January 2005'. I also make the orders sought in pars 14 to 18 of the originating process. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr J McGrath

Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Counsel for the First, Second and Third Defendants: The First, Second and Third Defendants did not appear

Date of Hearing: 26 April 2006

Date of Judgment: 26 April 2006

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cited By (1)