Obviously the legal system is rightfully biased towards defendants.
…it is incredibly difficult to be confident you will win a court case, when you have been wronged.
Also obviously there is a vast gulf between what you know is true, and what you can prove in court. (More so with a creative defendant).
@CaptainBarnacles
Before making this kind of partisan statements, I suggest that you take the time to read through the actual Federal Court judgement:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca1521
It shows, in excruciating detail, why APRA’s whole case is legally unfounded.
In particular, look at section 6.1 (especially paragraphs 126-127), which deals with the key issue of whether the ORFR (Operational Risk Financial Requirement) reserve can be used to compensate members for operational mistakes of a trustee.
Here is the Judge’s conclusion on the matter (paragraph 127), which leaves little room for doubt:
“APRA has sought to put a gloss on the use which may be made of the ORFR to the effect that it is available to reimburse members for losses but only when consideration of all other potential avenues for redress have been exhausted. Further, in oral submissions APRA said that any use of the ORFR or the general reserve to reimburse members could not be considered to be “compensation” of the members for loss because they were being given their own money. For the reasons set out above that construct is artificial. The propriety of the use of the ORFR (and any reserve) is to be determined by the statutory scheme and the instruments and policies which regulate the use of the reserve. APRA’s construct is not founded on anything in those documents and must be rejected. This undermines a large swathe of APRA’s case, founded as it is on the impropriety of the respondents’ conduct in proposing the use of or using the ORFR to reimburse members for certain losses.”
(20min delay)