James Mawhinney Appeals Financial Product Injunctions

Managing Director of investment group Mayfair 101, James Mawhinney, has filed an appeal against last month’s Federal Court decision that prevents him from dealing in financial products for 15 years.

On 5 September 2025, Justice Button made orders preventing the Australian businessman from receiving or soliciting funds in connection with any financial product as defined in the Corporations Act, for 15 years. 

The proceeding was a re-run of a case which originated in 2020 when the Australian Securities and Investments Commission took enforcement action against Mayfair 101 and obtained a 20-year injunction against Mr Mawhinney, only to have the case overturned on appeal and remitted to a new judge.

Mr Mawhinney has now appealed the findings of Justice Button on 13 grounds, including that the primary judge erred in key findings that:

• a Mayfair company, IPO Capital, issued debentures;

• a repayment representation was made, or that it was misleading or deceptive;

• a no risk of default representation was made, or that it was misleading or deceptive;

• a security representation was made;

• a property bonds security representation was made or that it was misleading or deceptive;

• an order may be made under s1101B(1) Corporations Act 2001 penalising a person because of that person’s association with a contravention of the law by another person.

Mr Mawhinney also argues that the penalty was manifestly excessive. The appeal seeks to have the proceeding dismissed and to have ASIC pay costs.

Mr Mawhinney successfully defeated approximately two thirds of the accusations levelled at him in the remitter case, including 57 out of 90 allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct. Despite defeating most of the alleged contraventions, he was issued a further 15-year injunction having been restrained on an interim basis already for 5 years.

Mr Mawhinney also successfully defended the accusations that he loaned investor monies to family members and that Mayfair’s products were marketed as comparable to bank term deposits. The term deposit allegation was central to ASIC’s ‘true-to-label’ campaign led by former Deputy Commissioner Karen Chester in 2020. Justice Button found that the term deposit representation was not made, which contradicts earlier findings by the court which led to penalties of $30 million being levied against four Mayfair companies.

In August 2020, ASIC made an ex parte application to have a provisional liquidator appointed to a Mayfair entity by telling the Federal Court that Mr Mawhinney was operating multiple Ponzi schemes and he had misappropriated investor assets to the British Virgin Islands. ASIC’s application relied on a Deloitte expert witness report which was based on an erroneous instruction letter from ASIC. ASIC subsequently abandoned those claims and the Deloitte evidence, in the re-run of its case against Mr Mawhinney.

Prior to ASIC taking enforcement action, all Mayfair 101 clients were paid principal and interest on time and in full, no complaints had been made by any Mayfair client, no defaults had occurred, and all monies were deployed in accordance with the offer documents.

Mr Mawhinney has been actively re-building his commercial interests so that Mayfair’s debt instrument holders can be repaid in full, including interest. Mr Mawhinney considers the appeal of Justice Button’s decision is integral to Mayfair 101’s clients being made whole.

--- ENDS ---

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

Mark Abernethy: +61 414 310 924