Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92
13-2-26 / Mei Barnes — Corporations, Corporate Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Mei Barnes (led by Ms S Maiden KC and Mr A O'Brien) appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by MinterEllison. This case concerned an application brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against the defendant, FIIG Securities Limited (FIIG), for orders relating to alleged contraventions of obligations under the…
Elks, in the matter of Moreton Resources Limited (Receivers Appointed) [2025] FCA 1695
6-2-26 / Anthony Messina — Corporate Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Anthony Messina represented the respondent, instructed by Sasha Legal. The plaintiffs sought leave to issue a subpoena to produce documents to the proper officer of the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board. The respondent resisted the subpoena, arguing that the documents were subject to the Harman undertaking. Wheatley J was satisfied that…
William George Trading Pty Ltd v Enhalo En Ltd [2025] QSC 296
11-11-25 / Chris Stackpoole — Corporate Insolvency & Bankruptcy, Corporations
Chris Stackpoole appeared for the respondent, instructed by M Behlau & Associates Pty Ltd. The judgment concerned a statutory served by the respondent to the applicant claiming it was owed $6,368,054.19 AUD by the applicant. The applicant sought to have the statutory demand set aside on grounds that it is…
Damian Clothier KC and Jonathan Hohl appeared for the respondent, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. The case involved a dispute over a technical services advisory agreement (TSAA), where the respondent alleged the applicant had not paid consulting service fees of $1,074,006.85 and subsequently issued a creditor’s statutory demand. The applicant…
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of Adgemis [2025] FCA 1218
3-10-25 / Rob Anderson KC, Chris Stackpoole — Corporate Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Rob Anderson KC and Chris Stackpoole, appeared on behalf of the Inspector-General of Bankruptcy, instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers. In summary, this case concerned whether a sequestration order should be made against Mr Adgemis. In finding that a sequestration order should be made, the Court held that Mr Adgemis had…
