Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 OCTOBER 2020

ASIC v Mitchell: Another Reason For ASIC Not To Litigate

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

The Situation: Australia's corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") brought proceedings against two former directors of Tennis Australia...

AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Tim L'Estrange
Tim L'Estrange
Mark Crean
Mark Crean
Michael Lishman
Michael Lishman
Jennifer L. Chambers
Jennifer L. Chambers
Author LinkedIn connections

In Short

The Situation: Australia's corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ("ASIC") brought proceedings against two former directors of Tennis Australia ("TA") alleging that they engaged in numerous contraventions of their duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of their conduct during negotiations between TA and Seven Network Holdings (Seven) for a renewal of an agreement for the domestic broadcast rights to tennis tournaments.

The Judgment: In ASIC v Mitchell (No 2) [2020] FCA 1098, Justice Jonathan Beach of the Federal Court of Australia rejected 41 of ASIC's 44 allegations against the directors. Justice Beach was extremely critical of the way that ASIC had brought its case finding that the regulator's case theory displayed confirmatory bias and dismissing its construction of the evidence as based on unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories".

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Video

Misrepresentation In Commercial Contracts Under Australian Law

Misrepresentation in commercial contracts can expose businesses to significant legal and financial consequences, particularly where inaccurate statements, misleading disclosures, or unrealistic forecasts induce entry into a transaction. Under Australian law, parties may pursue remedies through both common law misrepresentation claims and statutory misleading or deceptive conduct provisions under the Australian Consumer Law, with potential outcomes including rescission, damages, and compensation orders.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Force Majeure Clause Risks In Australia Explained

Force majeure clauses in Australian contracts determine whether extraordinary events can suspend, delay, or excuse contractual obligations, but relief depends entirely on precise wording and strict compliance with notice and mitigation requirements. Understanding when businesses can legally invoke force majeure versus when they risk breach of contract claims is critical for managing commercial disruption.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Frustration Of Contract Explained: Can You Legally Walk Away?

Frustration of contract is widely misunderstood in Australian law, with many assuming contracts automatically end when circumstances become difficult or expensive. This guide examines the strict legal test applied by Australian courts, explaining when supervening events truly discharge contractual obligations and why financial hardship, increased costs, and commercial difficulties typically fall short of the frustration threshold.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

What Is The Liability Under A Contractor Agreement In Australia?

A contractor agreement determines who pays when work goes wrong. Independent contractors carry their own commercial risk, unlike employees, so the agreement allocates that risk in detail. Liability commonly arises from breach of contract, intellectual property infringement, and breaches of confidentiality. Indemnities, liability caps and insurance requirements are the three tools that allocate it. Australian law puts limits on that allocation. Consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law apply automatically, and no contract can exclude them.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Dividend Payments - Key Issues For Australian Company Directors

Dividends are a common way for companies to distribute value to shareholders, but whether to declare or pay a dividend is not simply a commercial decision. Directors must ensure that any dividend complies with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), the company’s constitution and relevant governance requirements, while considering their duties to the company and its creditors.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

Ninth Circuit Vacates CFAA Injunction Against Perplexity's Comet AI Agent

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction against Perplexity AI, determining that when an AI agent acts at a user's direction, it is the user—not the AI company—who "accesses" computer systems under federal and California computer fraud statutes. This landmark appellate decision addresses how existing computer-access laws apply to agentic artificial intelligence and has significant implications...
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

EU Commission Pushes for Transposition of the EmpCo Directive on Environmental Claims

The European Commission has initiated infringement procedures against 20 EU Member States for failing to transpose the EmpCo Directive by the March 27, 2026 deadline. This directive aims to combat greenwashing by requiring substantiation of environmental claims and third-party certification for sustainability labels, with full implementation expected by September 27, 2026.
European UnionConsumer Protection
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

China's Supreme Court Issues Landmark Judicial Rules On AI: Implications For Product Liability, IP, Data, And Generative AI

China's Supreme People's Court has issued comprehensive judicial rules addressing artificial intelligence disputes, establishing frameworks for product liability, intellectual property rights, and data protection. These landmark opinions provide critical guidance for global companies navigating AI-related legal risks in China's evolving regulatory landscape.
ChinaIntellectual Property
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Amendment To The General Rules Under Mexico’s Anti-Money Laundering Law (LFPIORPI): Key Regulatory Changes Under Acuerdo 115/2026

Mexico's comprehensive anti-money laundering framework has undergone a sweeping transformation through Acuerdo 115/2026, introducing mandatory risk-based methodologies, enhanced client due diligence protocols, and automated monitoring requirements. With implementation deadlines beginning March 1, 2027, obligated parties conducting vulnerable activities face compressed timelines to overhaul their compliance infrastructure while navigating heightened enforcement risks and stricter beneficial ownership thresho
MexicoGovernment, Public Sector
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Federal Court Holds New York’s Climate Superfund Law Preempted By CAA

A federal court has struck down New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, which sought to recover $75 billion from fossil fuel companies based on historical emissions. The ruling found the Act preempted by the Clean Air Act, marking the first judicial decision on state climate superfund legislation and establishing that EPA's rescission of the endangerment finding does not alter preemption analysis.
United StatesEnvironment
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Commission Proposes EU Public Procurement Act

The European Commission has proposed replacing the EU's three core procurement directives with a single, directly applicable Regulation that would fundamentally reshape how companies compete for public contracts across Member States. The reform introduces mandatory quality criteria thresholds, embeds ESG considerations as evaluation factors, and establishes new security and European-preference provisions that could restrict participation based on ownership, supply chain exposure, and strategic dependencies.
European UnionGovernment, Public Sector
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

New EU Guidelines On Abuse Of Dominance: Recalibrated Framework, With Ample Room For Aggressive Enforcement

The European Commission has adopted final Guidelines on exclusionary abuses of dominance under Article 102 TFEU, introducing a "workable effects approach" that narrows presumptions while expanding guidance on objective justifications and recognizing sustainability benefits as valid efficiencies for the first time. These Guidelines replace the 2008 Enforcement Priorities Guidance and are expected to significantly impact enforcement practices across EU Member States and beyond, particularly for digital market
European UnionAntitrust/Competition Law
Jones Day
Jones Day