Love v Australian Securities Commission

[2000] WASCA 404

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Accounting records
3. › Obligation to keep accounting records
4. › Whether company's recordkeeping failed to comply with requirements
5. › Whether director failed to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance
6. › Corporations Law (WA), ss 289(1), 591(1), 591(2)
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from Magistrate's conviction
3. › Fresh evidence on appeal
4. › Whether fresh evidence gave rise to real possibility of different result
5. › Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 196(1)
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from Magistrate's conviction
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether Magistrate's reasons sufficiently revealed bases for findings and conclusions
5. › No need for Magistrate to provide definition of adequate recordkeeping

Quick Take

The failure to keep a general journal or ledger is relevant to whether a company has satisfied the minimum requirements of s 289(1) of the Corporations Law. A Magistrate who accepts expert evidence on recordkeeping deficiencies need not repeat that evidence in reasons, nor define what would have constituted adequate records; the critical question is whether the Crown discharged the onus of proving non-compliance. Temporary records not intended to be kept permanently do not constitute accounting records for s 289(1) compliance purposes, though they may evidence a director's supervisory steps.