07877541228office@mamissionuk.com365 Halliwell Road, Bolton, BL1 8DE
Created by potrace 1.15, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2017

Services Australia Legal Case

The Court of Justice is currently seized of 97 association cases throughout the country (plus 11 related cases). The defendant, Aware Financial Services Australia Ltd (Aware), provided financial advisory services under an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) between 2014 and 2018. Meanwhile, Aware has accepted payments from its customers for the provision of ongoing annual audit services, which are financial services within the meaning of Section 12DI(3)(a) of the ASIC Act. This article contains an analysis of the case and the orders made. More information on financial services and markets, including the obligations of financial service providers, can be found on our Pinpoint platform ® here. However, Aware did not provide these services. It was found that Aware offered incentives to its financial planners for new business, leading it to prioritize new clients instead of providing the required annual review services to existing clients. Consciously acknowledged responsibility and the parties agreed on a penalty. It should be noted that there is a recognised public interest in resolving cases, particularly under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). • Aware has not established and maintained compliance measures to ensure it complies with financial services laws – a violation of Law 912A(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and The number of customers affected by Aware`s conduct exceeds 25,000, representing approximately $50 million in fees for services not provided. The case highlights the severity with which courts deal with a violation of financial services laws and the mistreatment of financial services customers.

It is probably a consequence of the Royal Commission on Banking that the courts take a tougher approach to compliance with financial services legislation. • Aware failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the financial services covered by its AFSL were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly – a breach of Companies Act 912A(1)(a), parties and class action lawyers can register on the Commonwealth Courts Portal (CCP) to access information about the case, including documents filed, Access. Scheduled listing events and orders placed. • there were reasonable grounds to believe that Aware would not be able to provide the financial services to all customers – a breach of the ASIC Act 12DI(3). NSD1971/2019 – JOHN FENTON v. MONSANTO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Federal Supreme Court Class Actions (Effective August 11, 2020) VID134/2020 – ROGER KEMP v. WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Related: VID133/2020 – TRACEY REILLY & ANOR V AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED & ORS (Filed February 28, 2020). The court found that the high penalty reflects the seriousness of the violations and should have a chilling effect on other financial service providers, rather than being considered an acceptable cost of doing business. It also points out that infringing conduct: If the Court has ordered publication on this site, the document will be published in the table below. NSD1736/2019 – MERVYN LAWRENCE BRADY v NULIS NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (ACN 008 515 633) IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF MLC SUPER FUND SAD120/2020 – CHRISTOPHER PETER THOMAS v ROMEO LOCKLEYS ASSET PARTNERSHIP IS THE PARTNERSHIP OPERATED BY LOCKLEYS FOODLAND PTY LTD & ROMEO LOCKLEYS HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ORS. Trade and business (regulation and consumer protection. Despite these findings, ASIC did not claim that Aware`s illegal conduct was intentional.

The court also noted that there was no evidence of previous violations by Aware (prior to 2014) and that Aware had fully cooperated with ASIC`s investigation. Financial service providers should be aware of their obligations under the legislation and ensure that appropriate practices, procedures and controls are in place to ensure compliance, including ongoing audits. VID28/2020 – SIMON MALLIA v COLONIAL FIRST STATE INVESTMENTS LTD & ANOR NSD220/2019 – CARPENDERS PARK PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE OF CARPENDERS PARK PTY LTD STAFF SUPERANNUATION FUNF) V SIMS METAL MANAGEMENT LTD ACN 114 838 630 NSD576/2018 – JAMES BONHAM AS TRUSTEE OF AUCHAM SUPER FUND V ILUKA RESOURCES LTD NSD1210/2019 – Kenneth John Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited. • caused by permissible errors in Aware`s processes and controls. NSD1983/2017 EXCEL TEXEL PTY LTD (AS TRUSTEE OF MANDEX FAMILY TRUST) V. QUINTIS LTD. NSD181/2020 – LINDSEY SCHOFIELD & ANOR v TFS MANUFACTURING & ORS. VID489/2020 – NIGEL PETER STACK & ANOR V AMP FINANCIAL PLANNING PTY LIMITED & OR NSD2021/2019 – ZHITAO PAN v ROYAL NATIONAL CAPITAL ALLIANCE LIMITED & ORS. NSD215/2019 – THE OWNERS – STRATA PLAN 87231 V 3A COMPOSITES GMBH & ANOR. VID1141/2019 – Marcel Eugene Krieger v Colonial First State Investments Limited. Those factors are essentially the same as those referred to in Article 76(1) of the Law on Competition and Consumer Affairs 2010. NSD940/2019 – The owners – Condominium plan No 91086 v Fairview Architectural Pty Ltd NSD580/2018 – RAFFAELE WEBB v GETSWIFT LTD ACN 604 611 556 & ANOR » Documents VID1209/2019 – JUSTIN HILL v SKILLED WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS (NSW) PTY LTD The court ordered Aware to pay a fine of $20 million plus litigation costs and to publish a written notice of negative publicity.

The purpose of adverse communication is both punitive and protective (dispelling false or false impressions and alerting customers to illegal conduct). VID1373/2019 – EDMUND HOW FEN YONG V WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION. QUD734/2019 – IAN LEWIS CONSULTING PTY LTD AGAINST THE HEART OF LION INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED & ORS. QUD11/2020 – GARRY CHARLES FRANCIS AND JODI LEE FRANCIS v OCULUS ACCOUNTING PTY LTD NSD206/2020 – JOHN DOUGLAS MCFARLANE v IOOF HOLDINGS LIMITED • the circumstances in which the act or omission took place, and On 17 February 2022, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Aware Financial Services Australia Ltd [2022] FCA 146. NSD862/2018 – GEOFFREY PETER DAVIS & ANOR VS. QUINTIS LIMITED (BENEFICIARIES AND NAMED MANAGERS) (VOLUNTEER DIRECTORS.

Comments are closed.