Government + Regulatory Litigation
Experience dealing with some of Australia's most complex regulatory disputes and investigations. Aptum acts on both sides — for companies responding to regulator conduct, and (through prior taskforce work) with the deep insider knowledge of how regulators actually run their matters.
How can Aptum help?
Litigation involving Government and regulatory bodies are often fact and evidence heavy, document intensive and technically complex disputes to manage and execute.
Aptum's leadership team have experience on joint taskforces such as Project Wickenby and the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce, and in large scale competition law disputes.
Aptum's wider team are experienced in complex commercial litigation on behalf of various Government bodies, departments and agencies, as well as for companies responding to investigations.
Our familiarity with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) enables us to advise on the most effective course of action when investigations seem likely, and respond strategically when notices are issued.
As a litigation-only firm, Aptum's expertise in trial has seen us work with many companies in contested hearings, including appealing regulatory and administrative decisions to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
"Nigel Evans, with David Adason and the Aptum team, are among Claim Funding Australia's most highly valued and trusted collaborators. Nigel and the team wield a significant power to weight ratio and deliver a sophisticated and highly effective method to litigation and dispute resolution."
What is government and regulatory litigation?
Government and regulatory litigation is the resolution of disputes between businesses and public sector actors — regulators, government agencies, tribunals and courts exercising public power. It covers the full pathway from the first compulsory information notice through to the contested hearing and judicial review.
Australian businesses now operate in the most active regulatory enforcement environment the country has seen. ASIC has restarted heavy civil penalty proceedings after several years of relative quiet. The ACCC continues aggressive s155 notice activity and cartel enforcement. AUSTRAC is running high-quantum civil penalty matters against banks and gambling businesses. APRA's Financial Accountability Regime commenced for banks in 2024 and extends to insurers and superannuation in 2025. AUSTRAC, the ATO and joint taskforces continue to run financial crime prosecutions. The ART replaced the AAT in October 2024 for review of federal administrative decisions.
Aptum runs matters across the whole surface. The strategic question in every regulator matter is the same: which combination of engagement, cooperation, formal response and (where necessary) litigation produces the best commercial outcome — and where is the line between showing cooperation and giving up ground that will cost the client later.
Where Aptum runs government and regulatory litigation
-
01
ASIC investigations, enforcement and defence.
Response to ASIC section 19 examination notices, section 33 production notices, s912A notices for AFSL holders. Defence of civil penalty proceedings under Part 9.4B. Defence of ASIC applications to disqualify a director under section 206C or 206E. Cross-refers to Financial Services and Securities Litigation and Corporations Law and Directors Duty Disputes.
-
02
ACCC investigations and enforcement.
Response to section 155 compulsory information notices, defence of misuse of market power proceedings, cartel investigations, unconscionable conduct proceedings, and unfair contract terms enforcement action against small-business and consumer-facing businesses.
-
03
APRA disputes and Financial Accountability Regime.
Prudential standard breach investigations, disputes over licensing conditions or directions, and the newly-live Financial Accountability Regime obligations for accountable persons at banks (from 2024), insurers and superannuation trustees (from 2025).
-
04
AUSTRAC investigations and enforcement.
Response to AUSTRAC compulsory information notices, defence of civil penalty proceedings for breach of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, and coordination with AML compliance reviews. AUSTRAC's recent enforcement posture has been aggressive and high-quantum.
-
05
ATO investigations and criminal referral.
Response to ATO enforcement activity that extends beyond civil recovery — s264 information notices, criminal referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and joint taskforce investigations. Cross-refers to Tax Litigation for the civil side.
-
06
Judicial review of administrative decisions.
Applications under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) and section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to challenge government decisions on jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, or failure to consider relevant matters. Run in the Federal Court of Australia.
-
07
Administrative Review Tribunal appeals.
Appeals to the ART (formerly AAT) from the merits of a wide range of federal government decisions — migration, professional registration, veterans' affairs, some regulatory decisions. Aptum runs the substantive matters where the amount at stake or the ongoing licence consequences justify the run.
-
08
State regulatory investigations.
WorkSafe prosecutions, EPA enforcement, gaming and liquor licensing disputes, professional registration challenges before state boards, and coronial inquiries where a business's conduct is under examination.
-
09
Compulsory examination and notice response.
Section 19 (ASIC), section 155 (ACCC), section 49 (AUSTRAC) and equivalent state notices. Response strategy is a specialised discipline in its own right — over-cooperation gives the regulator ammunition, under-cooperation invites escalation. Aptum runs the balancing act.
-
10
Public inquiries and Royal Commissions.
Response to inquiry summonses, preparation of witness statements, coordination with counsel assisting, and management of concurrent civil and criminal exposure arising from inquiry evidence.
-
11
Whistleblower matters.
Defence of businesses named in whistleblower disclosures under the Corporations Act protections regime, and advice to individuals considering whether to make a protected disclosure.
-
12
Freedom of Information (FOI) applications and disputes.
Both making FOI applications against government agencies for documents relevant to a matter, and defending FOI decisions on review at the Information Commissioner and the ART.
-
13
Government contract disputes.
Disputes with Commonwealth, state or local government under commercial contracts — procurement disputes, contract termination challenges, and challenges to the exercise of contractual rights by government counterparties.
-
14
Coronial inquiries and Royal Commission responses.
Where a coronial inquest or Royal Commission examines conduct that could expose the business to civil or criminal action, careful management of the inquiry evidence is essential to protect against downstream exposure.
What stage is your matter at?
Where the matter sits determines which Aptum service is the right fit.
I've received a compulsory information notice or been served with an examination notice.
This is the right page. Notice response strategy is a specialised early-stage discipline and getting it right shapes the whole matter.
The regulator has commenced civil penalty proceedings against my company or me personally.
This is the right page. Aptum defends civil penalty proceedings brought by ASIC, ACCC, APRA, AUSTRAC and state regulators.
The regulator has referred my matter for criminal prosecution.
This is the right page but the matter needs coordination with criminal counsel. Aptum manages the civil regulatory side alongside criminal defence.
The regulator's decision affects my licence or my ability to keep operating.
This is the right page. Judicial review of adverse regulatory decisions, ART appeals of licensing decisions, and stay applications all sit here.
The matter is a financial services regulator matter (ASIC, APRA, AFCA).
You may also need our Financial Services and Securities Litigation service. Financial services regulator matters have their own sector-specific frame.
The matter is a tax matter with the ATO.
Cross-refer to our Tax Litigation service for the civil dispute and ATO and SRO Debt Recovery for the recovery side. This page covers the harder regulatory / criminal referral end.
The regulator is investigating directors' conduct.
Cross-refer to our Corporations Law and Directors Duty Disputes service. Personal exposure of directors under Corporations Act civil penalty proceedings runs there.
I'm not sure which category I'm in.
Book the value conversation below. We sort the pathway in the first meeting.
What Aptum brings to government and regulatory matters
Nigel Evans
Nigel Evans, Aptum's Managing Director and Co-Founder, leads Aptum's government and regulatory practice. Before founding Aptum, Nigel spent 11 years at the commercial Victorian Bar, including work on regulator investigations, competition law and criminal referrals arising from tax and financial matters. He is listed in Best Lawyers in Australia for Commercial Litigation and Tax Law (2026) and recognised by Doyle's Guide as a Leading Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Lawyer.
David Adason
Nigel is supported by David Adason, Aptum's Associate Director. David has practised commercial litigation exclusively across his career, including a period as Associate to a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. David's Federal Court background is directly relevant here — almost every substantive regulator matter (ADJR judicial review, civil penalty proceedings under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act, ACCC section 155 enforcement, AUSTRAC penalties, judicial review of ART decisions) is decided in the Federal Court. Doyle's Guide has recognised David as a Rising Star in Commercial Litigation and Insolvency Law. David runs the day-to-day conduct of regulator matters.
Taskforce experience is a genuine differentiator
Aptum's leadership have worked on Project Wickenby and the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce. That's the deep insider view of how joint agency taskforces build cases, sequence enforcement, and use information sharing between the ATO, ASIC, AUSTRAC and the CDPP. Few boutique firms can claim this.
Notice response is a specific skill
The first ASIC s19 notice, ACCC s155 notice, or AUSTRAC s49 notice you respond to sets the tone for everything that follows. Over-cooperate and you hand the regulator ammunition without getting anything in return. Under-cooperate and you accelerate the escalation. Aptum runs the balance. Legal professional privilege is protected properly from the first response.
Federal Court is where the substantive contested matters land
Civil penalty proceedings under the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act, the CCA, the AML/CTF Act and equivalent regulatory statutes all go to the Federal Court. Judicial review under the ADJR Act goes to the Federal Court. Appeals from the ART on questions of law go to the Federal Court. David's Federal Court practice depth is directly transferable.
What makes Aptum different
Specialist expertise
All we do is litigate complex commercial and tax disputes.
Legal intelligence framework
Practical, ongoing risk assessment to focus on the essential.
Project management framework
Routine documented strategy through custom project management.
Recent matter outcomes
-
01
A financial services provider responds to a major regulatory investigation
Following a cybersecurity incident, a financial services provider faced a significant ASIC investigation, compulsory notices, and related consumer claims. Aptum led the response to ASIC's investigation, managed large-scale document production and privilege issues, and advised the business on regulatory exposure. Aptum helped contain regulatory risk, protect the client's financial services licence, and avoid escalation into enforcement proceedings while the investigation continued.
-
02
A corporate taxpayer responds to a regulator's extensive document demand
A regulator issued a statutory notice requiring the production of documents spanning more than 15 years. Aptum negotiated with the regulator to narrow the scope of the request and used advanced document review technology to assess relevance and privilege. Aptum significantly reduced the burden on the client, protected sensitive material and completed the production process efficiently and cost-effectively.
What happens when you engage Aptum
Aptum runs every matter under our project management framework, with clear expectations on timing, cost and scope from the first call. Before you pay us anything, you get a free value conversation so you know exactly where you stand. No surprises.
Value conversation (free)
You come in for a conversation, in person at our office or over Teams, with the practice lead who would run your matter and your client experience coordinator. You tell us which regulator is involved, what notice or proceeding has been served, what has been said and written to date, and what you're trying to achieve. We tell you the realistic pathways (cooperation, formal response, negotiated undertaking, contested proceeding), what to expect on cost, timing and scope if you engage us, and where your immediate legal privilege and cooperation strategy should sit. Real expertise from a senior practitioner before you commit to anything, not a fake triage.
Pathways assessment
Once you engage, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. For regulator matters that typically means mapping the specific notices, examination steps and civil penalty exposure, deciding on the cooperation posture, identifying legal privilege protections, and (where relevant) engaging criminal counsel or specialist barristers to run alongside the civil regulatory work.
Execution
This is the phase for notice responses, examination attendance, undertaking negotiation, defended civil penalty proceedings, judicial review applications, or ART appeals. Where the matter involves parallel criminal referral, execution also covers coordination with criminal defence counsel and management of the interaction between the civil and criminal proceedings. Routine documented strategy. Regular communications. A relentless focus on the essential issues.
How we manage cost
Regulator matters cover a wide cost range, from a discrete section 155 response to a multi-year contested civil penalty proceeding. What we commit to is one of our five client service promises: clear expectations as to the timing, costs and scope of our engagement, and updating those expectations as early as possible if anything changes.
Value conversation.
A free conversation with the practice lead to work out the realistic response strategy and options before you commit any fees.
Estimate and scope.
Once engaged, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. Stage-based budgets, regular reporting, and any scope changes documented and agreed in writing. For regulator matters we typically structure the estimate around each phase: notice response, examination preparation and attendance, undertaking negotiation (if applicable), and defended proceedings.
D&O and cyber insurance coordination.
Where the matter is likely to trigger a claim on directors and officers, professional indemnity, or cyber liability insurance, coordinating with the insurer from the earliest stage is essential. Aptum works with insurers under the policy notification and claim-handling terms so the defence is funded properly and no coverage argument arises later.
Investment mindset.
Aptum approaches every matter with an investment mindset: the most practical outcome in the shortest possible time, at the least possible cost, with the biggest possible return.
Frequently asked questions
-
What is a regulatory investigation?
A regulatory investigation is a formal enquiry conducted by a government regulator into whether a business or individual has breached a regulatory obligation. Investigations typically start with an information gathering phase (compulsory notices, examinations), progress to a decision-making phase (whether to take enforcement action), and can end in a range of outcomes from no action, to an enforceable undertaking, to civil penalty proceedings, to criminal referral.
-
What is a section 155 notice?
A section 155 notice under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) is a compulsory notice issued by the ACCC requiring a person or company to produce documents, give information, or attend for examination. Compliance is compulsory and failure to comply is a criminal offence, but the response should be carefully managed — over-production hands the regulator material it wasn't entitled to and under-production risks contempt.
-
What is a section 19 examination?
A section 19 examination is a compulsory examination under the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) where a person is required to attend before ASIC and answer questions under oath. The examinee cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination (though transcript may be inadmissible in later criminal proceedings against them). Careful preparation with a lawyer before the examination is essential.
-
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is a challenge to the lawfulness of a government decision — as distinct from an appeal on the merits. Federal judicial review runs under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) or section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Grounds include jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to take into account relevant considerations, or acting for an improper purpose. Judicial review does not re-decide the merits — if successful, the decision is set aside and remitted to the decision-maker.
-
What is the difference between the AAT and the ART?
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in October 2024. The ART reviews the merits of a wide range of federal government decisions (migration, tax, veterans' affairs, professional registration and more). Procedure and case management under the ART are still bedding in but broadly follow the AAT's substantive approach — decisions are made afresh on the evidence.
-
What is the Financial Accountability Regime?
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 APRA-regulated entities. FAR investigations of accountable persons are becoming a live regulator activity.
-
Can the regulator refer my matter for criminal prosecution?
Yes. Most regulators can refer matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the state DPP where they consider there is evidence of a criminal offence. The civil regulatory matter and the criminal prosecution then have to be run in coordination, with careful attention to what the civil proceeding produces that could be used in the criminal proceeding.
-
What is the difference between an enforceable undertaking and a civil penalty?
An enforceable undertaking is a written commitment given by a business to the regulator, agreeing to take specified actions (usually compliance improvements, sometimes financial remediation) in exchange for the regulator not pursuing enforcement. A civil penalty is a court-ordered pecuniary penalty following a contested or admitted breach of the regulator's Act. Undertakings avoid the civil penalty and the reputational hit of court proceedings, but the concessions are usually substantial.
-
How much does regulator defence cost?
It depends on the regulator, the stage the matter is at, the volume of documents involved, and whether the matter is settled by undertaking or contested to civil penalty judgment. Notice responses can run to $30–75K. Contested civil penalty proceedings can run into the millions. At the pathways assessment we give you a stage-based cost forecast so you know each phase before you commit.
-
Do I need a lawyer to respond to a regulator notice?
Yes. The response shapes the whole subsequent matter, legal professional privilege has to be protected from the first response, and the strategic decisions about cooperation versus contest have to be made carefully. Legal privilege over your strategy and options only attaches to your communications with a lawyer.
-
Should I make a whistleblower disclosure?
Whistleblower protections under the Corporations Act, Taxation Administration Act and other statutes protect eligible disclosers who report misconduct through the proper channels. Whether disclosure is the right pathway depends on the specific facts, the availability of protections in the client's situation, and the strategic consequences. Aptum advises both potential whistleblowers and businesses named in whistleblower disclosures.
Offices
Aptum services government and regulatory litigation clients across Australia from three offices.
Thinking on government and regulatory litigation
Aptum publishes regularly on regulatory enforcement, investigations, judicial review, and the mechanics of running substantive matters against government agencies.
Get clarity on your regulatory matter
Regulator matters move on the regulator's timetable, not yours. The window to respond to a s155 notice or a s19 examination summons is measured in weeks, not months. The strategic decisions made at the first notice response shape the whole matter that follows.
In a free value conversation, Aptum's government and regulatory team will tell you exactly where you stand, what the strategic response posture should be, and what the pathway to a commercial outcome looks like. No surprises.
Call (03) 7020 9230
Book your value conversation