Heseltine v Investment Planners Australia Pty Ltd

[2008] WASCA 79

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Corporations
2. › Dealer's licence
3. › Liability of licence holder for conduct of representative
4. › Whether conduct was 'as a representative'
5. › Statutory presumption under s 820
6. › Whether presumption rebutted
7. › Corporations Law 1990 (Cth), ss 94, 817, 820
1. Corporations
2. › Securities representatives
3. › Proper authority holder
4. › Scope of conduct as representative
5. › Unauthorised retention of client funds
6. › Whether conduct in connection with securities business or as agent
7. › Corporations Law 1990 (Cth), ss 9, 88, 94(2), 94(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Defence
4. › Whether issue raised by pleadings
5. › Whether evidence led without objection may raise unpleaded issue
6. › Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Rules 2005 (WA), r 10

Quick Take

Where a statutory presumption under s 820 of the Corporations Law operates to presume that a representative's conduct was conduct 'as a representative' of the principal, the principal bears the onus of rebutting that presumption. Failure to lead evidence about the scope of the representative's duties means the presumption is not rebutted, even where the conduct may also have been on the representative's own behalf.

Case Details

Citation[2008] WASCA 79

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on8

2006Sandstone DMC Pty Limited & v Trajkovski & AnorNSWCA 205
2006Ryan v Ann St Holdings P/LQCA 217
2004Newman v Financial Wisdom Limited; Newman v Hold Pty LtdVSC 216
2004Broadcast Australia v Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural ResourcesHCA 4
and 4 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in