ASIC still wants to spend more on lawyers

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

12 December 2024

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has claimed it would be assisted in legally pursuing large entities if it was allowed to spend more on lawyers.

While defending its willingness to pursue large entities, ASIC repeated earlier evidence it gave to a Parliamentary Committee that it feels constrained by Commonwealth limits on what can Government departments and agencies can spend on lawyers.

Elsewhere in answers to written questions from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, ASIC referred to $166,020, 000 in court-ordered pecuniary penalties in 2022-23.

“In the proceedings in which ASIC and the defendant put an agreed position to the Court at trial, a total of $166,020,000 in pecuniary penalties was ordered by the Court,” it said.

Answering a written question on notice from West Australian Labor parliamentarian, Tania Lawrence, ASIC said it had “a strong enforcement record of pursuing litigation against large entities and their officers.

In doing so, it cited having earlier this year commenced court proceedings against insurer, QBE Insurance for misleading customers about the value of discounts offered on certain general insurance products, and for its pursuit of 11 current and former directors of Star Entertainment Group.

“There are numerous other examples of ASIC pursuing large entities and their officers. ASIC can provide further examples if this would assist the Committee,” the regulator said.

“ASIC would be assisted with the conduct of its litigation against large entities and their officers by having more flexibility in the rates it is permitted to pay Counsel who appear for ASIC in its enforcement litigation, under the Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth),” it said.

ASIC said it did not have written guidelines for reaching agreed positions with defendants but suggested that such outcomes were generally on ASIC’s terms.

“ASIC brings court proceedings where it forms the view that the evidence establishes that the defendant has contravened the law and that it is in the public interest to commence the proceedings to protect the public, including through specific and general deterrence,” it said.

“If a defendant proposes an agreed position be put to the Court, ASIC will only agree to that position where it is of the view that the proposed outcomes achieve ASIC’s regulatory purpose in commencing the proceedings and the proposed outcome is consistent with the evidence. As a result, in many cases where an agreed outcome is put to the Court, that outcome either entirely, or very closely, reflects ASIC’s allegations in the claim.