Mayfair 101 Applies to Set Aside $30 Million Penalties and Re-Open ASIC Proceedings

Mayfair 101 has filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking orders to re-open proceeding VID228 of 2020 that resulted in $30 million in penalties being imposed against four companies within the Mayfair 101 group.

The application seeks orders setting aside the earlier liability findings of Justice Anderson on 23 March 2021 and staying the operation of the penalties pending determination of the application.

The application follows the issue of statutory demands by ASIC in March 2026 seeking payment of penalties of $10 million against Australian Income Solutions Pty Ltd, $8 million against M101 Holdings Pty Ltd and $4 million against Online Investments Pty Ltd, with M101 Nominees Pty Ltd also being fined $8 million but entering liquidation in early 2021.  The Mayfair 101 companies filed applications within the statutory 21-day period to set the demands aside.

Mayfair 101 contends that the original liability trial in 2021 proceeded in circumstances where the defendants had no legal representation, no evidence was called on their behalf, and the companies’ director, James Mawhinney, was refused leave to appear for the companies after seeking the Court’s permission to do so.

According to court filings, the Mayfair 101 companies contend that circumstances surrounding the period leading to the trial - including multiple injunctions, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cessation of legal representation and financial constraints - resulted in the trial being undefended.

The application further relies on findings arising from a Federal Court ruling last year that Mayfair 101 says gave rise to materially different outcomes on issues central to the original case. In materials filed with the Court, Mayfair 101 states that following a fully contested trial in later proceedings, one of the principal representations relied upon in the original proceeding – the bank term deposit representation - was found not to have been made. 

The bank term deposit representation which has since been disproven was central to ASIC’s regulatory campaign directed at Mayfair 101 from late 2019.  ASIC has relied on court findings arising from the uncontested trial of VID228 of 2020 to justify its actions against Mayfair 101.

Mayfair 101 said the application goes to the fairness and integrity of the original process itself. It said that where proceedings carrying consequences of this magnitude were effectively undefended, and subsequent litigation has produced materially different findings, the interests of justice require the matters to be reconsidered on a contested basis and with a complete evidentiary record.

The matter is yet to be listed for substantive hearing.

END