Updates on these proceedings will be added to this page.
See links to other posts about Dominique Grubisa.
Read more detail of the ACCC’s claim.
8/5/25. The High Court rejects Grubisa’s application for an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal the decision (by the Full Court of the Federal Court). It said the “proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time”
24 January 2025 (approx) Dominique Grubisa seeks leave to appeal the Full Court’s decision to the High Court. Her appeal related to the Court’s finding that she was personally liable for the conduct of the business Master Wealth Control.
20 December 2024. Full Court of the Federal Court dismisses appeal by Master Wealth Control and Dominique Grubisa. Grubisa’s argument was basically that she shouldn’t be held liable for misconduct by the company (even though it was her who made the statements) because she didn’t realise they were misleading. This ar
20-21 November 2024. Full Federal Court hears appeal by Grubisa and Master Wealth Control against findings & penalties. Grubisa claims even if company engaged in misleading conduct, she should not be held personally responsible.
31 July – 2 August. Grubisa and DGI sought a stay of penalties (and payment of refunds) until the appeal had been heard. Despite the fact that Grubisa and DGI had conceded the ACCC’s claim about complete asset protection, the appellants argued they wanted to appeal that point as well, and therefore wanted a stay on paying refunds. DGI argued that if if had to pay refunds before the appeal, it would send the company broker and therefore it couldn’t run the appeal. The ACCC claimed that the legal costs of the appeal would probably use up all of DGI’s funds, leaving nothing for consumer refunds.
31 July 2024. ASIC bans Grubisa from being a company director for 18 months, due to her involvement in two failed companies, finding she “engaged in insolvent trading, failed to exercise her powers and discharge her duties as a director of DGID and DGIA with the degree of care and diligence required”.
19 July 2024. Penalties are handed down. Grubisa fined $1 million by 19/8/24. Grubisa and DG Institute are restrained from making the misleading representations or similar for 5 years. Grubisa is disqualified from being a company director for 5 years. DG Institute to offer a refund to all consumers who bought the asset protection product (which could total almost $15 million), DG Institute pay a fine of $5 million (but only after consumers are compensated), and that DG Institute put notices on their websites regarding the refunds. Unfortunately the Judge found that while the ACCC had asked that Grubisa be personally liable for the refunds if the company didn’t pay, the ACCC were too late in making that application.
9 April 2024, the Federal Court found in the ACCC’s favour on all counts, that DG Institute engaged in misleading conduct in relation to “no equity” representations in promoting the RER program, claims that the ‘Vestey Trust’ would protect all assets from creditors, and representations that the ‘Vestey Trust’ had been tested and upheld by the Federal Court (Sharrment v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy). See more here. For background to the ACCC’s claims see here.
19th March 2024. The case was concluded after two days. Grubisa chose not to give evidence, and rather than arguing that Grubisa’s statements were true, her barrister argued that the Court should find that she is incompetent, rather than blatantly misleading her audience. Her barrister said ” …what we would say is that she was incompetent, but her incompetence was not to be treated as being so blithe that she [was] aware of her own incompetence…”. It is now up to the Judge to make his decision in the matter.
22nd February 2024. Grubisa is unsuccessful in seeking a stay of the NSW Law Society’s action against her until the ACCC matter is concluded. The Law Society’s action against her relates to her conduct as a solicitor, and the 12 grounds include misleading conduct in relation to the asset protection product she sold.
23/8/23 A 5 day hearing is set down for week commencing 18th March 2024.
14/2/23 Court record shows lawyers acting for Grubisa (at least at this point) are Assure Lawyers. Assure Lawyers were previously DGI Lawyers. Grubisa was a director until she no longer held a legal practising certificate and was banned from holding certain licences by ASIC in March 2022. A solicitor Zeeshaan Nordien is sole director of Assure Lawyers. [Zeeshaan was replaced in March 2023 by James Lyons from Murphy Lyons Lawyers]. The law firm is 50% owned by a business of which Kevin Grubisa (Dominique Grubisa’s husband) is sole director.
15/12/2022 Court action for alleged misleading representations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issues proceedings in the Federal Court (NSW) against Master Wealth Control (trading as DG Institute) and Dominique Grubisa for making false or misleading representations in relation to Real Estate Rescue program and Master Wealth Control program. The three specific misrepresentations alleged by the ACCC are:
- if a bank repossesses and sells a home, the homeowner loses all their equity because “banks don’t give change”.
- the Vestey Trust was “bulletproof”, “impenetrable” and would result in students being “unable to be effectively pinned down by creditors”.
- the Vestey Trust structure had been tested and upheld as effective by the Full Federal Court of Australia in case Sharrment
The Federal Court File Number is NSD1104/2022
For more detail of ACCC’s claim, see the ACCC’s statement provided to the Court.
The Naysayer 