Sreenevasan Young

On the court record

A commercial and securities-litigation record reaching the Federal Court, engaging the mental element of insider-trading liability and the Attorney General's constitutional powers, alongside robust use of the striking-out jurisdiction.

Sreenevasan Young is recorded in the corpus in high-value commercial and regulatory litigation, including work at the Federal Court. In a Federal Court appeal the firm acted for the appellant in a securities matter concerning insider trading, where the questions of principle were whether an intent to use the alleged inside information — the mental element — is required to ground liability under section 89E of the Securities Industry Act, or whether liability is strict and turns on mere possession of the information; the correct time at which to assess the materiality of the information; and, as a constitutional issue, whether the Attorney General's power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to institute proceedings for an offence extends to a civil action brought under sections 90 and 90A(5) of the same Act. In the High Court the firm acted for the defence in an action arising from an alleged fraudulent transfer of land, where the plaintiff said he had intended only to obtain a business loan and had given the title as security; the action did not proceed to trial and was struck out with costs after the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's pre-trial case-management directions under Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012 and an unless order. In a further High Court matter the firm again acted for the defence and obtained the striking out under Order 18 rule 19 of an action founded on alleged abuse of process, malicious institution of civil proceedings and conspiracy to injure, with costs ordered. Across these matters the firm is recorded engaged in securities-law questions of general importance alongside robust commercial litigation in which the striking-out jurisdiction is deployed to bring unsustainable or non-compliant actions to an early end. In the fraudulent-transfer matter the action was struck out with costs after the plaintiff failed to comply with an unless order and with the court's pre-trial case-management directions under Order 34 of the Rules of Court 2012.