Thank you. I think that clears up the question but maybe not the underlying problem.
There's no question about the good faith, honestly, fairly, reasonably, etc. That's all implied and is pleaded. The question then becomes how do you get from that to the declaration being made? You get there by expressly pleading what it is that demonstrates ASX has not acted in good faith, honestly, fairly, reasonably, etc. ISX have but no mention is made of conflict. If it is part of something to come, then it needs to happen quickly.
You can look at it from another angle. How would you get the evidence regarding conflict in? If you're acting for ASX you'd be very tightly pinning ISX down to the particulars as pleaded and if there was any attempt to get the evidence in through the side door it would be objected to on the grounds of relevance for starters. It doesn't relate to an issue in the case as pleaded and if it does, it should have been pleaded and particularized with an amended Defence filed to answer it. Just as ISX have a strategy, so too would ASX and I suspect that would be keeping everything out that is not strictly relevant to the case as pleaded. Obviously, the Judge always has the final discretionary call on the admissibility of evidence on the voir dire.
I get where you're coming from. Blind Freddy can see that there's something amiss here and that's putting it in neutral terms. But ISX have to proceed on the current 2FASOC and that's why ASX will be doing everything they can to shackle them to that document and not permitting any evidence to go in that is not relevant to the pleadings, and that includes conflict. If the question of conflict was thought to be relevant and able to be proven to the requisite standard, I'm sure the ISX legal team, when they addressed issues of "good faith, honestly, fairly, etc", would have included it.
Expand
