ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-25

First 25 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
THGH

1,293 Posts.

370

26/02/23

16:12

Post #: 66471286
Share

Originally posted by ChillingOut: ↑

"I dare say there its considerable evidence that suggests ASIC was going out on a limb to assist ASX with the gripe ASX had against ISX. The ASX held the working relationship with ASIC and ASIC let them go beyond the duties of the operating license."

Maybe, but that's a serious allegation tantamount to fraud, misfeasance in public office, and collusion, and if that is the Defendants' intent, then it needs to be pleaded and particularised, and then Briginshaw evidentiary issues arise. Even then, Judges don't make those adverse findings of fact, or inferences to be drawn, lightly.

It would certainly be unwise, I believe, to open on something that hasn't been foreshadowed in the Court documents or of which no notice has been given. Put your best foot forward on what you can invariably prove on the BOP as fact first up and go from there. I'm hoping they will otherwise you're crying wolf (probably over objection) from the get go and if things aren't going your way on the primary issues (onus borne by ASIC), it will be very difficult to sway a Judge on a hypothesis that ASIC acted in cahoots with ASX in closing submissions. It's forensically an interesting case. I'm interested to see how it plays out, as are many.

Expand

I too am interested how this plays out. Hopefully the conclusion is near, no matter the result.

One thing I would say, I don't believe ASIC has any evidence.

It is all assumption of wrong doing based on actions of a company and its director. Yet the same actions that that suggest no foul play are dismissed or not considered.

why is this?
11 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply