IOOF back in court over adviser dispute

IOOF/

29 November 2004
| By Craig Phillips |

IOOF has been slammed by a Victorian Supreme Court Judge over its “appalling” retrieval of records in relation to a protracted legal dispute with advisers who alleged the group sold building society offices held by them to Bendigo Bank in 1999.

The case, which took place in 2002 with a ruling handed down by Justice Habersberger in September 2003 in favour of the advisers, went back to court on Monday for a scheduled two week trial to determine damages.

Speaking at a directions hearing on October 7, Judge Habersberger criticised IOOF on its record of retrieving documents requested by the plaintiffs for possible use in the case. Commenting on a defence affidavit that stated searches for the documents requested by the plaintiffs were continuing, the Judge denounced IOOF, saying “the history of discovery in this matter is appalling”.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court Judge has criticised IOOF. In handing down his ruling in the original case in September 2003, he said the Melbourne-based funds management group’s case was plagued with “inconsistencies” and that “virtually every witness was open to criticism”.

The plaintiffs, Warwick Hawksworth and Ken Taylor, have been unable to reach an out of court settlement with IOOF.

“The gulf between the parties is such that there has been no realistic prospect of the meeting of the minds,” Phillips Fox partner acting on behalf of IOOF Stephen Sawer says. He says costs incurred by each party in the case are “north of $1 million”.

At the time of the original agreements in 1996, Hawksworth and Taylor were both working with IOOF-owned Winchcombe Carson. The ruling in 2003 found in favour of the pair who alleged IOOF sold building society offices they had separately agreed to franchise to Bendigo Bank in 1999.

IOOF sold its building society business to Bendigo for around $40 million, and the plaintiffs scored a victory on liability as their contracts were subsequently terminated without the pair being given 12 months notice.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 week 2 days ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

1 month ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

1 month 1 week ago

AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies. ...

2 days 11 hours ago

ASIC has released the results of the latest adviser exam, with August’s pass mark improving on the sitting from a year ago. ...

1 week 5 days ago

The inquiry into the collapse of Dixon Advisory and broader wealth management companies by the Senate economics references committee will not be re-adopted. ...

2 weeks 5 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
moneymanagement logo