Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd

These reasons are supplementary to those expressed in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 342. Terms defined in that judgment bear the same meaning in these reasons. Following delivery of judgment on 31 March 2015 the parties contacted my associate, quite appropriately, to point out that I did not deal expressly with the relevance objection relating to [5] of the notice to produce. Relevance was the only objection made to production of the documents sought at [5], which provides as follows:

The relevant paragraph of McGregor #1 is in the following terms:

PTPG’s position is that these documents have no apparent relevance because the purpose of [35](a) of McGregor #1 was to address potential prejudice to PTPG if the interlocutory orders sought by ASIC were granted. ASIC submits that PTPG’s communications with its clients regarding its activities are directly relevant to both the question of compliance and the issue of the final relief sought. ASIC also says that communications between PTPG and its clients are relevant to the way PTPG’s business was and is conducted and the advice it provides to them regarding SMSFs.

It seems to me that the communications from clients said to have been received by PTPG, especially where those comments or questions relate to the media release, will go, arguably, to the effectives of the compliance regime and/or the extent to which final relief as sought by ASIC may be necessary. The way in which PTPG has responded, both in terms of the compliance regime and reviews, but also directly to these enquiries, appears to me at least to have relevance to the issues the Court will be called upon to determine.

Consequently, I consider that [5] should stand and PTPG should produce the documents sought.