FICS wins Westpoint jurisdiction ruling
Alison Maynard
An Australian Federal Court has ruled that the Financial Industry Complaints Service (FICS) has the jurisdiction to deal with complaints against financial advisers who recommended investment through Westpoint promissory notes.
Today’s ruling by Justice Finkelstein effectively scuppers an internal challenge by some “affected financial service licensees” that promissory notes are not considered “financial products” under both FICS’s rules and under the Corporations Act.
This argument formed a key basis upon which the licensees were arguing internally that FICS did not have the necessary jurisdiction to deal with Westpoint complaints.
FICS approached the court on the basis of legal advice after this argument caused “unnecessary delays” in the organisation’s ability to hear Westpoint cases, according to chief executive Alison Maynard.
“Getting this decision on jurisdiction from the Federal Court was the quickest way we could think of to resolve the issue and get back to our job of helping Westpoint investors resolve their complaints.”
Maynard added that the specific ruling that promissory notes fell within the definition of a financial product “removed any doubt that we could proceed with Westpoint promissory note cases without further delay”.
FICS has to date received more than 320 complaints from Australian consumers about advice they received to invest in Westpoint schemes, she said.
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
