Court Finds Dover Client Protection Policy False, Misleading or Deceptive

The Federal Court of Australia has found Dover Financial Advisers engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct.

In a release, ASIC stated the conduct in question involved publishing false, misleading or deceptive statements in a “Client Protection Policy” (Protection Policy) between around 25 September 2015 and 30 March 2018.

The Protection Policy was provided to 19,402 clients with statements of advice by representatives of Dover and purported to be ‘designed to ensure that every Dover client get [sic] the best possible advice and the maximum protection available under the law’. 

In the judgment, his Honour Justice Michael O’Bryan found that the title of the Protection Policy “was highly misleading and an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak. The document did not protect clients. To the contrary, it purported to strip clients of rights and consumer protections they enjoyed under the law”.

The Court found that the policy was false, misleading or deceptive in circumstances where:

  • It did not ensure that clients received the maximum protections available under the law
  • It purported to remove or dilute the protections that clients would otherwise have had under the law
  • It sought to prevent clients from making a claim against Dover and its authorised representatives on the basis that advice could not be understood
  • It sought to exclude Dover’s liability for most foreseeable breaches of the law by its authorised representatives
  • It sought to limit or exclude Dover’s liability to clients in a way that was inconsistent with the law

The Court found that Dover’s sole director, Terrence McMaster, was, as a question of fact, knowingly concerned in that conduct, and was satisfied it was appropriate to make a declaration that McMaster had contravened section 12DB(1)(i) of the ASIC Act.

It also found, as a matter of fact, McMaster, also Key Person named on Dover’s Australian Financial Services Licence and a Responsible Manager during the relevant period, was knowingly concerned in Dover’s contraventions, having regard to concessions by McMaster, including that he was responsible for:

  • Determining and/or approving the Protection Policy; and
  • Requiring Dover’s representatives to incorporate the Protection Policy with statements of advice provided to clients.
“The law imposes important obligations on companies licenced to provide financial advice and for the protection of their clients.”

ASIC Deputy Chair, Daniel Crennan QC, says, “The law imposes important obligations on companies licenced to provide financial advice and for the protection of their clients. Clients who receive financial advice should not be misled as to what those obligations are and what they mean for them and their interests.”

His Honour rejected the defendants’ primary submission that because ASIC had not sought to prove that any Dover client had suffered loss or damage by reason of the Protection Policy then the defendants had not engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct within the meaning of the ASIC Act.   

In delivering his reasons for judgment, Justice O’Bryan noted that there had been a contravention of the law each time the Protection Policy was sent to a client, being 19,402 times.

Penalties will now be determined by the Court on a date yet to be fixed.

  • Jeremy Wright

    I am not aware of Dover’s reliance on Legal advice when they were putting their Client Protection Policy together, though what generally happens, is that one set of Lawyers prepares a Legal Document that no-one except other Lawyers understand.

    Then within that Document, there is much grey wording that enables other Lawyers to interpret what they believe to be the intent of the document.

    This and most legal documents are great for Lawyers, as they are guaranteed to provide revenue opportunities for all the current and future Legal Eagles who will be needed to explain if necessary, in Court, what the parties meant.

    The tragedy for most Australians and Business owners, is that Legal documents are deliberately structured so very few people even attempt to decipher them and instead, rely on and hope their Lawyers are doing the right thing by them.

    Legal interpretation, allows Lawyers to charge outrageous fees for advice, that had the document been set out in plain English, clients would not have needed to employ the Ivory tower Legal team to parley with the other Highly paid Legal Eagles who are now attacking them.

    There is a Total conflict of Interest when working with Lawyers, as they know that if they cut out the convoluted jargon, this would diminish their abilities to keep the cash cow going.

    What is the best rort for Lawyers, is they always enclose disclaimers to absolve them of any wrong doing and then get their unsuspecting clients to sign these illegible documents stating they understand what the document means.

    When you consider that judges were Lawyers, it is not lost on many peoples minds that the Law and the Legal fraternity, are very closely aligned in their approach and mindset when it comes to going to Court and the way Legal documents and their meanings are interpreted.