ST Private Investment Fund No 1 Pty Ltd v Agio Global Funds Management Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1367 — Corporations & Receivers And Managers Appointed. — Barrister AI
ST Private Investment Fund No 1 Pty Ltd v Agio Global Funds Management Pty Ltd
Application for appointment of receivers and managers under s 23 and s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Whether just or convenient to appoint receivers
Where there was evidence that the fund did not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence
Quick Take
1Under s 57(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the power to appoint a receiver is expressed in broad terms requiring only that it be 'just or convenient' to do so, and does not require 'exceptional circumstances' or impose an implicit fetter on the exercise of the power.
2Evidence that an investment fund has been operating without an AFSL (or valid authorised representative status) since the cessation of a corporate authorised representative arrangement, combined with related party transactions requiring investigation, financial difficulties, and majority unitholder support, can together establish that it is just or convenient to appoint receivers and managers to protect and preserve fund property.
3Following BPS Financial, whether an entity that is the issuer of interests in an unregistered managed investment scheme can rely solely on authorised representative status rather than holding its own AFSL remains a question requiring investigation, though it was left unresolved on this interlocutory application.
