"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.
SP1 Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
