When your barrister’s strongest argument in your defence is that you are incompetent, you’re in trouble!
On 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). For background to the ACCC’s claims see here.
The Judge remarked that the ‘Vestey Trust’ system had no resemblance to the structure implemented by the (well known) Vestey family, and that members of the Vestey family have had their names taken in vain!
Grubisa was sole director of DG Institute and the Court found that Grubsia was “knowingly concerned in and party to the contraventions”, meaning that the Court can impose penalties (which could include fines and injunctions) on Grubisa personally.
Grubisa’s barrister was unable to argue that the representations were true (because they were so clearly false). Even a lawyer who Grubisa called as her witness, to explain her “banks don’t give change” statement, couldn’t support her misleading statements.
The Naysayer 