Last month, a Count subsidiary successfully defended a class action in Federal Court regarding a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) and if Count had breached fiduciary and statutory duties or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
This took place on 27 May and the applicant had 28 days to file an appeal.
Count, which is Australia’s second-largest advice licensee, originally told the ASX in the morning of 27 June that it had not received any appeal within the 28-day period. However, this was revised in a subsequent statement in the afternoon.
“At the time of the ASX release this morning, Count’s subsidiary, Count Financial Limited (Count Financial) had not received notification of an appeal within the 28-day period following the judgment that was made on 27 May 2025.
“Count advises that this afternoon Count Financial received a notice of appeal in relation to the class action which, Count understands, was filed with the Federal Court of Australia within the prescribed time frame.”
It is understood the matter in the class action related to whether Count Financial and its authorised representatives at Centenary Financial breached fiduciary and statutory duties or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by continuing to receive commissions post-Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms between the relevant period of 21 August 2014 and 21 August 2020.
The applicant was the corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund (Hunter SMSF), operated for the benefit of Roslyn Hunter, Neal Hunter and their sons, Shaun Hunter and Dene Hunter. The case was brought by Piper Alderman.
The applicant acquired four financial products following the provision of financial advice from Count Financial, and both upfront and trail commissions were payable on these. While it contended Count breached fiduciary duties, contravened related best interest and client priority statutory duties, and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, it did not contend the products were unsuitable or should not have been recommended.
In the Federal Court of Victoria on 27 May, Justice Halley said: “Count did not owe any fiduciary duties to the applicant with respect to the relevant period advice or was not otherwise liable for any alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the applicant’s representatives.
“The Applicant has not established that Count contravened its statutory supervisory obligations pursuant to s 961L of the Corporations Act in relation to the provision of any of the Relevant Period Advice; and
“The Applicant has not established that Count engaged in any misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 1041H of the Corporations Act, s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) or s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) in relation to the provision of any of the Relevant Period Advice.”
The court ordered the amended originating application filed on 16 December 2020 otherwise be dismissed and the applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs, as taxed or agreed.
