• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Edward Greaves

Edward Greaves

Perth Barrister

  • Profile
  • Practice Areas
    • Proceeds of Crime Act
    • Criminal Property Confiscation Act
    • AMLCTF
    • Unexplained Wealth Laws
    • Financial & Complex Crime
    • Injunctions
  • Judgments
  • Blog
  • Briefing & Fees
  • Search
  • Contact Me

Wellington Capital Limited v ASIC: Case Note

5 November 2014 By Edward Greaves Leave a Comment

On 5 November 2014 in Wellington Capital Limited v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2014] HCA 43 the High Court considered the powers of a responsible entity of a managed investment scheme. The Court examined key provisions of Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as well as the relevant scheme constitution which was in a common form. (([2014] HCA 43 at [10].))

In dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court, the High Court confirmed that the responsible entity (Wellington Capital Limited) acted beyond power in giving an instruction to the scheme custodian to distribute certain scheme property (namely shares acquired by the scheme in an unlisted public company) to the unit holders in specie.

In what is becoming a common theme on the current bench, Gageler J published his own reasons, however his Honour was in agreement with the joint judgment of French CJ, Crennan, Kiefel & Bell JJ.

The joint judgment held:

The Scheme Constitution, properly construed in the light of the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act, confined the return of capital to the winding up process and to cash payments annexed to the periodic distribution of income. ((At [5].))

The High Court was not in complete agreement with the Full Court of the Federal Court, holding that the latter’s finding that “absent the consent of all beneficiaries it is not open to a trustee simply to transfer the trust property to the beneficiaries” was “too broad in the context of this case” and adding that “It is not necessary to explore the matter further as the outcome of the present appeal is to be determined by reference to the Scheme Constitution construed in its statutory setting. ((At [37].))

It is clear that those advising responsible entities can and should approach the task of interpreting the provisions of a scheme constitution “through the prism of trust law,” remembering however, that “the extent to which general principles of the law relating to trusts apply to a responsible entity’s functions under a scheme constitution depends upon the purpose of the statutory trust, other provisions of the Corporations Act and the terms of the scheme constitution.” ((At [12].))

Filed Under: Corporations

About Edward Greaves

Edward Greaves is recognised as an expert barrister in relation to matters under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA), and other State Confiscation and Asset Forfeiture regimes. He also specialises in AMLCTF, complex and financial crime (including fraud, money laundering and serious drug offences) and offences under the Corporations Act.

Edward Greaves is the author of the Confiscation chapter of LexisNexis’s Criminal Law Western Australia.

« Previous Post
Next Post »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Edward Greaves
Barrister

Francis Burt Chambers
Level 25, 77 St George’s Terrace Perth, Western Australia

email: ewg@egreaves.com.au
mobile: +61 417 921 300
desk: +61 8 9220 0592

Encrypted Communications

Request a Call Back.

No obligation or fees for initial enquiries.

Privacy Policy · All content on this website is of a general nature and does not constitute legal advice.
Illustrations from absurd.design unless otherwise noted.

Liability limited under a scheme approved by Professional Standards Legislation.