Andrew O’Brien KC (leading J O’Brien) represented the sixth defendant, instructed by Gadens.
Salwa Marsh (led by K O’Gorman SC and with R Strong) represented the plaintiff, instructed by Ashurst Australia.
ASIC sought relief against three corporate and personal defendants for a cryptocurrency mining investment scheme operated by the corporate defendants and owned by the personal defendants. The relief sought included: declarations of contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Act’); injunctions; orders for winding up of two of the corporate defendants and the mining scheme; and orders to vary existing orders against Mendham. No party objected to the relief sought; the Court must be satisfied that the relief was appropriate to grant.
The Court ordered the relief sought by ASIC. In finding the defendants had breached ss 911A(1), 911B(4), and 601ED(5) of the Act, the Court held that declarations of contravention should be made. As the injunctions sought where not equitable ones, were in the public interest, and expressed disapproval over the defendants’ conduct, the Court was satisfied the relief was appropriate. The court ordered the winding up of the corporate defendants and the mining scheme as they had consented to their own winding up and there was a rational basis for ordering so. In circumstances where the variation is by consent, the Court was satisfied that an order to vary the existing orders be made.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
