Financial Services and Securities Litigation

Financial services litigation is the resolution of disputes arising from the provision, distribution or regulation of financial products and services in Australia. Covers banking disputes, investment disputes, adviser and broker claims, disputes with fund managers and superannuation trustees, insurance coverage disputes, and disputes with regulators including ASIC, APRA and AFCA.

Securities litigation is a subset of financial services litigation dealing with disputes about the offer, sale and secondary market trading of financial products regulated as securities under the Corporations Act. It includes prospectus and PDS misstatement claims, capital raising disputes, insider trading and market manipulation matters, and shareholder class actions.

Yes, but Australian courts have been careful about the scope of a bank’s duty to its customer. Lender liability claims are narrower than in some other jurisdictions. The most productive framings usually combine an alleged breach of a specific contractual duty with a misleading and deceptive conduct claim under s12DA of the ASIC Act or s18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Aptum assesses the framing at the diagnostic call.

AFCA determinations are binding on the licensee if the complainant accepts them, and are not appealable in the ordinary sense. However, they can be judicially reviewed in the Federal Court on limited grounds (jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, or failure to comply with AFCA’s rules). The application must be made within a tight window. Aptum has run judicial review of AFCA determinations for licensees.

Section 1041H of the Corporations Act, s12DA of the ASIC Act, and s18 of the Australian Consumer Law all prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct in the supply of financial services or products. The prohibitions are broadly worded and don’t require proof of intent, meaning conduct can be actionable even where the provider did not know the statement was misleading. Reliance and causation still have to be proven.

Six years for most Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law claims (with variations by jurisdiction and cause of action). Some claims run from the date of the loss, others from the date of the conduct. Where the loss was concealed or latent, the limitation period may extend. Given the complexity, treat any claim within a year of a potential limitation date as urgent.

Yes, if the advice fell below the standard of a competent adviser, caused you a loss, and the loss is recoverable at law. Financial adviser claims are typically run under three parallel framings: common law negligence, breach of the best interests duty under s961B of the Corporations Act, and misleading and deceptive conduct under s1041H. Aptum runs adviser claims both directly and cross-referred with our Professional Negligence service.

The DDO regime, operational since October 2021, requires product issuers and distributors of retail financial products to define a target market for the product and ensure distribution is consistent with the target market determination. ASIC has been increasingly active in DDO enforcement, and non-compliance is now a common ground of claim in retail investor disputes.

FAR replaced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) and commenced for banks in March 2024. It extends to insurers and superannuation trustees from March 2025. FAR imposes accountability, conduct and deferred remuneration obligations on accountable persons at the entity. Regulator investigations under FAR are becoming a live issue for executives at APRA-regulated entities.

It depends on the complexity, the forum, and the depth of expert evidence required. A discrete banking dispute may resolve for under $75,000 in fees. A Federal Court securities matter with multiple experts and multi-year discovery can run into the millions. At the pathways assessment stage we give you a stage-based cost forecast so you know each stage before you commit. Where the case is fundable, we can put a funded structure in front of you.