The Court held that s 7(1) of the ASIC IDR Instrument 2020/98 is a valid exercise of the declaration-making power under s 926A(2)(c) of the Corporations Act, such that a financial services licensee's failure to comply with its IDR procedure constitutes a contravention of ss 912A(1)(g) and 912A(5A), attracting civil penalty consequences. The five business day exception under RG 271.71 requires the complaint to have been actually recorded or regarded as closed by the financial firm within five business days — retrospective claims that complaints were substantively resolved do not suffice where the firm continued the full IDR process. The no reasonable opportunity exception under RG 271.65 requires the financial firm to establish a causal connection between the asserted circumstances and the delay in responding to particular complaints, and general assertions of systemic pressures (COVID-19, staffing difficulties, regulatory demands) put at a high level of generality were insufficient; further, a non-compliant IDR delay notification does not constitute a separate contravention beyond the underlying breach of RG 271.56.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.