Clive Palmer claims legal win to plead ASIC case
Mr Palmer's legal team won the go-ahead to promptly front three Federal Court appeal judges as the Queenslander tries to revive a scuttled abuse of power action against former Australian Securities and Investments Commission commissioner James Shipton.
On another legal front, Queensland's Supreme Court has passed to its Federal counterparts an attempt by Mr Palmer to scuttle charges over the allegedly unlawful diversion of $12 million to his political campaign in 2013.
While the Queensland court this week rejected the lion's share of Mr Palmer's appeal aimed at killing charges laid in 2020, it ruled the Federal Court should determine questions related to a Brisbane magistrate's handling of Corporations Act allegations.
Hotly-contested charges laid in 2018 and 2020 as a result of ASIC investigations continue to grind through the Queensland legal system after Mr Palmer last year failed to scuttle them in the High Court.
In addition to various appeals, Mr Palmer and his operating company Palmer Leisure last year launched a Federal Court civil action blaming Mr Shipton for alleged misconduct related to the 2018 charges.
ASIC allegedly was improperly influenced as its officers investigated reports that Palmer Leisure failed in 2013 to proceed with a promised takeover for a company that operated time shares in Mr Palmer's Coolum Resort.
Mr Shipton was the ASIC commissioner from January 2018 to late 2020.
Federal Court judge Stewart Anderson threw out the misfeasance case against Mr Shipton in March this year after finding the Palmer allegations were drawn from inferences, assertions and speculation.
Ruling on Tuesday that Mr Palmer and Palmer Leisure be given an accelerated appeal process, Justice Craig Colvin said the cases against Mr Shipton may well lack the necessary evidence.
But the allegations 'impugned the conduct of the most senior officer of the regulator at the time', he said.
Justice Colvin said it was likely more efficient for the leave application and any appeal be heard together.
Mr Palmer would normally have to front a single Federal Court judge seeking leave to appeal against Justice Anderson's judgment.
Under the special processes decided by Justice Colvin, three judges will hear Mr Palmer's leave to appeal application and then rule on the substance of any appeal they allowed to proceed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
8 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
10 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
News.com.au
16 hours ago
- News.com.au
Anthony Koletti, partner of con-woman Melissa Caddick, charged with common assault
Police sources say Anthony Kolletti was walking about 5pm on Wednesday, July 23 in Lighthouse Reserve at Vaucluse when he walked towards two people he did not know, before allegedly 'barging' past one of them. He continued on his walk and then as he looped back, he walked past the couple again. One of the two allegedly took a photo of him and handed it in to police. On Tuesday police made an appeal for information, releasing a photograph on Facebook of a man in a black Under Armour t-shirt, black cap and sunglasses. In a statement police said a 73-year-old woman alleged she was assaulted by a man at about 5pm on Wednesday, July 23 in Lighthouse Reserve at Vaucluse. The elderly woman did not require medical treatment. Police made a public appeal for information on Tuesday, releasing the image of a man in a black Under Armour t-shirt, black cap and sunglasses. Mr Koletti, 43, attended Waverley Police Station at about 6.30pm on Wednesday, and has since been charged with common assault. He was granted conditional bail to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on September 5. NewsWire approached Mr Koletti at the hairdressing salon where he works in Rose Bay earlier on Wednesday. The part-time DJ and hairdresser refused to speak to our reporter and asked him to leave the salon after realising he was not there for a haircut. Ms Caddick went missing just hours after her Dover Heights mansion was raided by the AFP and ASIC in November 2020. The raid was conducted over a Ponzi scheme which she used to fleece investors of $20m to $30m. Ms Caddick's severed foot was found three months later on an isolated beach on the NSW South Coast, some 400km away from where she was last seen. A coronial inquest held in 2023 found Ms Caddick was dead, but did not determine how, when, or where she died. During the inquest, Deputy State Coroner Elizabeth Ryan concluded it was 'most unlikely' the foot was severed 'as a result of a deliberate act'. Mr Koletti has never been charged with any crime relating to Ms Caddick's disappearance or her criminal actions and is not accused of any wrongdoing in relation to either her activities or disappearance. When Caddick's shoe with skeletal remains washed up on a remote South Coast beach three months after she vanished, some hypothesised she faked her own death. However, Deputy State Coroner Elizabeth Ryan ruled it was unlikely she severed her own foot in order to go on the run, saying there was no trail of evidence and she would have needed medical attention. The coroner ruled Caddick was dead; however, it could not be determined how, when and where she died.
