My Single Favourite Judicial Homily

As a history tragic, I am somewhat fond of inspiring political and military speeches. For commercial lawyers, and I say this with an indescribably large level of self-awareness, courtrooms are battlefields and hence judgments are as close to an inspirational war-cry as most will ever hear. That being said, I was recounting the below judgment to a colleague the other day and was shocked that I had not written about it sooner; as it includes my favourite sermon contained within a judgment.

THE BELL GROUP LTD (IN LIQ) -v- WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION (No 9) [2008] WASC 239 holds a grim honor of being amongst the longest actively heard cases in Australian history occupying 404 hearing days between July 2003 and September 2006. By the time the various appeals were dealt with up to the High Court, it was indeed Australia’s longest ever running case. In the WA Supreme Court matter, the originating process was originally filed in 2000 and the decision was not handed down until 2008. It involved 20 different banks, 7 SC/QCs and numerous other barristers and solicitors.

Without going too deep into the minutia, the case dates back to the acquisition of the Bell Group by Alan Bond in the mid-80s. Bond bought 19.9% and wanted to get around the Acquisition of Shares Code, which would have required him to go public with the acquisition had he bought more. Bond convinced his political allies to use the WA State Government Insurance Commission to purchase another 19.9% and then sell those to Bond. The Bell Group had deep coffers and Bond intended to plunder its booty.

Through other loan agreements, Bond acquired a controlling interest and stripped $1.2 billion from the Bell Group. This landed him 2 years in gaol, the same sentence for disrupting a wedding, and amounted to one day for every $2 million. The incident led to decades of litigation including the above mentioned WA Supreme Court case.

I don’t intend to get into the complexities of this fascinating series of judgments as it is so long and complex that it makes Ken Burns look like Tommy Wiseau.

The politics are worth getting into though. Briefly, they involve backroom deals between Joe Hockey as Treasurer and the WA government agreeing to not press the ATO’s claim to $300m to allow it to flow to WA; seemingly a shady agreement between the two Liberal governments as compensation for a perceived slight over the allocation of GST distributions. Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC eventually persuaded Hockey that not pressing the Federal Government’s claim would likely be tantamount to neglecting his responsibilities as ministers (my words). In 2016, the then Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O’Dwyer, relied on Gleeson’s ongoing advice to intervene against a WA law that would have acted to strip the assets from the Bell Group in WA’s favour instead of following the normal preference allocation in insolvency. About one month later, Attorney-General George “Bunsen Honeydew” Brandis gave the unprecedented direction that the government solicitor was not to give advice to the government without clearing it with him first. This snowballed into a showdown that eventually led to Gleeson’s resignation, whose resignation letter rejected “each and every attack and insinuation” and did “not amount to a withdrawal of any position I have taken in relation to matters of controversy between us”. Anyway, its heady days we live in and you know how Ask Jeeves works; so you’ll look into it if you care.

Justice Owens was not aware of the political intrigue that would follow after his decision but his judgment does give an insight into the exasperation one must feel after 404 days of a hearing. The UWA alumn opens his judgment and my favourite commentary:

The Bell group of companies had a splendid radiance in the commercial life of Australia during the 1970s and early to mid-1980s. The group also had aspirations to international prominence. It was a favourite of the stock market and had accumulated (at least on paper) a relative fortune. But as the Bard so wisely remarked: ‘You fools of fortune, trencher-friends, time flies’. By the early 1990s fortune, friends and time had flown. This litigation is a result. It is a dispute of Brobdingnagian proportions that emerges wraithlike from the still-smoking ashes of the late 1980s: an unfortunate period in this State’s business and political history.

Now this is where you’re lucky to have me and this is where I’m lucky to have ctrl-f, because what follows is 9,760 paragraphs of imbroglio and entanglement. After such a “Brobdingnagian” judgment and hearing, the exhausted Owens J closes out his judgment:

I am not so naïve as to believe that the handing down of these reasons will mark the end of the litigation. But stranger things have happened. It is still not too late for the parties to put an end to this saga by a negotiated settlement, guided (perhaps) by the findings I have made. If formal judgment is never entered, or of there is a consent judgment on negotiated terms (whether or not they accord with what is contained in these reasons) I will be the last person to complain.

Whatever the parties decide to do from here, my role in the litigation will come to an end in the near future. Selfish though it may seem, for me that is the primary concern. I will try to engender sympathy for those who come after me: but I make no promises.

From time to time during the last five years I felt as if I were confined to an oubliette. There were occasions on which I thought the task of completing this case might be sempiternal. Fortunately, I have not yet been called upon to confront the infinite and, better still, a nepenthe beckons. Part of the nepenthe (which may even bear that name) is likely to involve a yeast-based substance. It will most certainly involve a complete avoidance of making decisions and writing judgments.

For the moment, in the words of Ovid (with an embellishment from the old Latin Mass): Iamque opus exegi, Deo gratias.

An oubliette is a gaol cell with the entrance in the ceiling, sempiternal means eternal and unchanging and a nepenthe is a mythical Greek drink so powerful that it banishes sorrow and eases grief.

Iamque opus exegi, Deo gratias.  –  And now I have finished the work, thanks be to God.

Justice Owens retired immediately after handing down his decision.

Forever Hold Your Peace or Face Two Years Imprisonment

It’s not the greatest secret in the legal world that many jurisdictions are slow to repeal outdated legislation. Likely owing to the fact that the world is only 6000 years old, most of these crazy old laws are based on religion.

It is illegal to disrupt a wedding or any other religious ceremony in South Australia.

The Summary Offences Act was enacted in 1953 and is patient zero for dopey South Australian laws.

token patient zero.gif

Under s7A of the Act, it is illegal to disrupt a religious ceremony including weddings or funerals. The section creates an offence for disrupting a ceremony regardless of the person’s intent.

S7A(1)(a) creates an offence for disrupting a religious ceremony, whilst s7A(1)(b) creates an offence for disrupting a ceremony in a way that is designed to be offensive. This would suggest that an offence under s7A(1)(a) is intended to cover all behavior that in any way disrupts a wedding. The creation of an absolute liability offence is recognised as generally requiring explicit language from the legislature due to the serious implications, but nonetheless, the language remains open to find this.

This is potentially why the South Australian rom-com movie industry has never taken off.

Mrs Bouvier!

The craziest part is that I haven’t gotten to the crazy part yet. The Act may have been created in 1953 when all those Australian beaus were returning from the end of the Korean war, but section 7A was only added in 1992.

In 1992 Cartoon Network was created, Bill “eating ain’t cheating” Clinton was sworn in as President and South Australia outlawed disrupting weddings. There is no doubt in my mind that the three are closely connected.

illuminati.gif

During the Christmas shopping season in 1997, Daniel Pfeifer wore a Dead Kennedys’ t-shirt with the logo “too drunk to fuck” whilst walking around the Adelaide shopping centres.

too drunk.jpegMr Pfeifer was charged under another section of the Act relating to general offence caused in public places, but the Court considered it similar to s7A and discussed that a mental element must be read into the act by implication.

The question remains unsettled, which is unfortunate for our purposes, but probably fortunate for South Australians. I could not find any instance of definitive judicial instruction on just how extreme the section could be applied. I guess the SA constabulary really needs to become a whole bunch more prescriptive before we get some good guidance.

An offence under s7A carries a fine of up to $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment.

Does it Matter? Identifying Parties Using ACNs and ABNs

Australian Business Numbers (ABN) and Australian Company Numbers (ACN) are often used interchangeably in legal proceedings. I attribute this to the fact that most lawyers on the local circuit are innumerate (author included) and their eyes glaze over as soon as they are presented with anything that an accountant may have ever touched.

dr brule

ABNs and ACNs

An ABN is an identifier issued by the Australian Taxation Office and is issued to every entity hoping to engage in business all the way from sole trader to partnership to corporations. An ABN is issued under the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 (Cth).

An ACN is an identifier issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and unlike an ABN is issued only to companies.

Well that was easy

Yep, simple right? You know I wouldn’t set you up just to rip the rug out from under you right? Well, wrong on both counts.

As far as process documents go, ACNs should be used when they exist unless the company is being sued as a trustee. In any event, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) does allow for leeway. Section 1344 of the Corporations Act allows for companies to be identified by either their ACN or ABN when required. As businesses don’t necessarily have ACNs this essentially means that an accurate description with either ABN or ACN will be sufficient for court documents.

Pro tip: An often ignored aspect of suing under an ACN is that the process is supposed to be accompanied by an affidavit attaching a search of the ASIC records. This is required by rule 2.4(2) of the Corporations Rules incorporated in Schedule 6 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).

Wait, that’s still pretty easy

Yep, that is unless you’ve met my friend the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).

In January 2017, a leasing finance company lost a $23m ore crusher all because they identified a company with its ABN instead of its ACN.

morty.gif

In 2009, the Australian Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) was passed. The act set up a register of security interests that was designed to simplify the registration and identification of security interests.

The act has not simplified things. Instead, we are now almost a decade into a post-apocalyptic hellscape ruled over by technocrats and bad bond villains (As far as registering security interests goes that is). Errors are common and the scheme is still poorly understood even by those who have studied it extensively.

Catch me if you can

In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed) [2017] NSWSC 21 concerned Alleasing, a leasing finance company, seeking to recover their $23m asset and prevent it from being applied by the administrators for the benefit of all of Onesteel’s creditors.

Alleasing had registered their interest under Onesteel’s ABN and later corrected it to the company’s ACN but only after the administrators had been appointed.

The Court was required to consider whether using the ABN created a “seriously misleading” defect as set out in section 164 of the PPSA.

Alleasing attempted to rely on section 1344, set out above, to allow them to use either identifier, but this was swatted away as that provision only applies to laws administered by ASIC, which the PPSA is not.

The Court found that using the wrong identifier was a serious defect as anyone searching the register using the ACN would not be able to identify the relevant security interest. In the case of Onesteel, the defect didn’t cause prejudice to any creditors or the company, but the defect remained nonetheless.

Alleasing also sought to rely on the Corporations Act (s588FL) to extend their time to amend the registration, but the property had already vested with the administrators so it would not be possible. The crusher was available for distribution to all of the creditors of Onesteel and Alleasing would simply have to wait in line with everyone else.

As with all things PPSR, this, of course, is not a consistent or clear position, even when the same judge is involved. In 2013, in Future Revelation Ltd v Medica Radiology & Nuclear Medicine Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1741 the same defect was found to not be serious and the property was returned to the claiming party. The common thread though is how easily the interest can be identified despite the defect.