Mayfair 101 Files Applications to Block $22M ASIC Penalty Demands

MELBOURNE: AUSTRALIA 26 March 2026 - Mayfair 101 has filed applications in the Federal Court of Australia to set aside statutory demands issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission who is pursuing $22 million in penalties from three Mayfair 101 companies.

The demands issued to Online Investments Pty Ltd, Australian Income Solutions Pty Ltd and M101 Holdings Pty Ltd arose from an undefended trial in March 2021 where Justice Anderson found the Mayfair 101 companies made four advertising representations which were misleading or deceptive, leading to $30 million in penalties against the companies. 

Four years later, ASIC made the decision to recontest the same four alleged misrepresentations after it was given a second opportunity by the Full Court to re-make its case against Mr Mawhinney which he successfully appealed.  In July 2025, after a properly contested 16-day trial involving the same four alleged misrepresentations and the same evidence, Justice Button found one of the four representations, that Mayfair’s products were the same or similar risk profile to bank term deposits, was not made. 

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information reveal that ASIC’s primary concern with Mayfair 101 dating back to November 2019 was the term deposit representation.  In March 2020, ASIC attempted to issue a public warning notice centering on the term deposit representation which Mayfair 101 successfully blocked, only to have ASIC issue Federal Court proceedings obtaining injunctions at the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic. 

The 2021 trial on liability which led to the penalties was unable to be defended by the Mayfair 101 companies because ASIC had obtained injunctions preventing the companies and their Managing Director from sourcing capital to fund a legal defence.  ASIC obtained interim injunctions in April 2020 prohibiting the advertising of the note products during the COVID-19 global pandemic and in August 2020, the court made further interim orders prohibiting James Mawhinney, his companies and staff from sourcing capital.  ASIC made a series of claims at an ex parte hearing which Mr Mawhinney was excluded from, and those claims were subsequently abandoned.

The injunctions denied Mayfair 101 access to its assets and capital to such an extent that it was restrained from engaging legal representation to defend the companies at the 2021 trial.  ASIC’s former Deputy Commissioner, Karen Chester, described ASIC’s uncontested court victory to the Australian Financial Review as a “timely comprehensive win” and claimed the trial “was uncontested because they had demonstrably broken the law”, statements which Mayfair 101 says are false and misleading.  ASIC’s approach to litigation had disarmed Mayfair 101 to the point where no one was present in court to the defend the companies. The court also declined Mr Mawhinney’s application to appear on behalf of the companies.

The applications seek to have the demands set aside based on a genuine dispute as to the existence or quantum of the penalty or for some other reason arising from the judicial inconsistency on key findings of fact which led to the penalties.

Mr Mawhinney has appealed the judgment of Justice Button while ASIC has not sought to appeal the court’s findings on the term deposit representation.  The other three representations are being appealed.  The appeals are to be heard by the Full Court in August 2026.