Ann O’Connell, ‘Protecting the Integrity of Securities Markets — What is an “Artificial Price”?: DPP (Cth) v JM‘ (25 July 2013).
In DPP (Cth) v JM the High Court unanimously allowed JM’s appeal against a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. JM allegedly sought to create an ‘artificial price’ on the Australian Securities Exchange by having a family member strategically purchase shares, and the meaning of that phrase was the central issue in the appeal. Rejecting the ‘narrower’ reading taken up by a majority of the VSCA, the High Court ruled that a share price created or maintained by a transaction that was carried out for the sole or dominant purpose of creating or maintaining a price was an artificial price.
High Court Judgment | [2013] HCA 30 | 27 June 2013 |
Result | Appeal allowed | |
High Court Documents | DPP (Cth) v JM | |
Full Court Hearings | [2013] HCATrans 96 | 8 May 2013 |
[2013] HCATrans 95 | 7 May 2013 | |
Special Leave Hearing | [2012] HCATrans 347 | 14 December 2012 |
Appeal from VSCA | [2012] VSCA 21 | 14 June 2012 |