The case provides a comprehensive framework for the exercise of discretion in ordering relief following findings of insolvent trading under s.588G, including the interrelationship between s.1317JA relief, prohibition orders, pecuniary penalties, and compensation. The paramount objective of prohibition orders is protection of the public, not punishment. Where multiple orders are made (prohibition, compensation, costs), the pecuniary penalty may be reduced to a relatively modest amount sufficient to serve deterrence. The court retains discretion to depart from agreed positions between ASIC and a defendant on the appropriate period of disqualification. It remains unclear whether s.588J permits compensation orders for less than the full amount of proved loss, as distinct from using s.1317JA to achieve that result.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.