By the skin of his teeth: Former health minister avoids bankruptcy
That was, until last Friday, when the legal battle he's been embroiled in with the corporate watchdog for over a decade ended quietly in an empty courtroom, as Wooldridge avoided bankruptcy by the skin of his teeth.
Wooldridge's legal troubles date back to his tenure as a director of retirement village company Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property Trust, which collapsed in 2010, taking $550 million in investors' cash down the toilet with it. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission went after Wooldridge and two fellow directors for breaching their duties, succeeding in a 2014 Federal Court decision that was overturned on appeal.
In 2018, ASIC got a much-needed victory, successfully appealing to the High Court. In a landmark judgment, the court held that Wooldridge and friends had breached their directors' duties by approving payment of $33 million out of the trust's funds to its founder, controversial Porsche-driving businessman Bill Lewski.
The former minister was eventually whacked with a $20,000 fine and banned from being a company director for two years. Wooldridge has since served out his time in the sin bin, and has been doing a bit of lobbying work for the vaping industry. At one point he employed former Labor senator Sam Dastyari, a bloke who knows a thing or two about flying too close to the sun.
But Wooldridge's tangle with ASIC resumed this year when the regulator sought to bankrupt him over their legal costs, thought to be in excess of $2 million. All those appeals stack up, and it seems ASIC has been waiting to get their bag since 2019 when the case was resolved.
Things were set for a showdown in the Federal Court last week. Instead, it all ended with a whimper as neither Wooldridge nor ASIC showed up.
The parties' lawyers had quietly reached a deal behind closed doors, allowing the good doctor to dodge bankruptcy, finally putting an end to the sorry saga. Wooldridge was contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canberra Times
2 hours ago
- Canberra Times
History, culture celebrated at 25th Garma festival
The most recent example of this fight was in March, when the High Court upheld a Federal Court decision that found the Gumatj clan's Country in northeast Arnhem Land was not acquired "on just terms" before being leased to the Swiss-Australian mining consortium Nabalco in 1968.
News.com.au
10 hours ago
- News.com.au
Elon Musk's X Corp loses Aussie legal fight against eSafety Commissioner
Elon Musk's X Corp, previously known as Twitter, has lost a second legal bid to overturn a penalty imposed by Australia's online watchdog two years ago. The US-based social media giant was handed a transparency notice by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant seeking information about the measures the company was taking to address the proliferation of child sexual exploitation material on its platform. The reporting notice required Twitter Inc to prepare a report on its compliance with basic online safety expectations between January 2022 and January 2023, with a response required by March 29, 2023. X Corp did respond, however the commission argued the reply was inadequate and incomplete, later imposing a $610,500 penalty in September that year. The company challenged the penalty in the Federal Court of Australia arguing the compliance notice was issued to Twitter a month before that company ceased to exist, when Musk acquired the platform for $44 billion, and therefore was not obliged to respond. The argument was struck down in October last year by Justice Michael Wheelahan who found the company failed to show that it was not required to respond. However the case returned before a full bench of the Federal Court in March as the company appealed against Justice Wheelahan's judgment. X Corp's barrister Bret Walker SC argued the Judge made a mistake in ruling the obligation to respond adequately to the notice continued after the merger of Twitter Inc and X Corp. He argued Justice Wheelahan had erred by not finding that at the time of the merger Twitter Inc 'ceased to exist' and the eSafety Commissioner would have been required to issue a new notice. The case returned to court on Thursday as Justice Bernard Murphy delivered a judgment against the social media company. Justice Murphy dismissed the appeal and ordered X Corp to pay the eSafety Commissioner's costs. The full judgment is expected to be published online. After Justice Wheelahan's initial ruling last year, Commissioner Julie Inman Grant welcomed the Court's decision. 'Early last year, we asked some of the world's biggest technology companies, including Twitter, to report on steps they were taking to comply with the Australian Government's Basic Online Safety Expectations in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material on their platforms,' she said. 'Had X Corp's argument been accepted by the Court it could have set the concerning precedent that a foreign company's merger with another foreign company might enable it to avoid regulatory obligations in Australia.'
ABC News
12 hours ago
- ABC News
High Court rejects X appeal against notice to explain sharing of child abuse material
The High Court has rejected an appeal made by X Corp against a notice the tech company was given by the office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanding an explanation about child abuse material shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Three federal judges on Thursday unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision made in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to the notice, which demanded details on how the Elon Musk-owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material. The tech company was also ordered to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Ms Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. The commissioner has also driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms, including X, from December. The federal court case dates back to early 2023, when Ms Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter in February that year. Twitter then merged with X the following month. Arguments presented to the court by X Corp against complying with the order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Ms Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed the ruling on Thursday. "This judgement confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company," she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and "holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia." A lawyer representing X, Justin Quill, said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10 per cent of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Ms Inman Grant's office fined X $610,500 for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay, and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. AP
