Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 6)

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 6) [2026] FCA 193 is a Federal Court costs ruling delivered by Justice Collier on 3 March 2026. It does not decide the full merits of ASIC’s broader case. Instead, it deals with who should pay legal costs after earlier substantive and interlocutory stages of the proceeding.

The Court made three key procedural moves. First, it ordered the second defendant to pay ASIC’s costs of the proceeding as against that defendant. Secondly, it ordered the fifth defendant to pay ASIC’s costs of an interlocutory application dated 27 May 2024. Thirdly, it reserved costs otherwise relating to the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants until the receivers appointed under earlier orders are discharged.

The judgment sits at the end of a larger ASIC proceeding involving crypto-related entities, digital currency assets and protective court orders. This decision itself does not set out the full commercial narrative, but it gives enough detail to understand the procedural setting.

ASIC had already pursued substantive relief against the second defendant, NGS Digital Pty Ltd. The Court recorded that ASIC sought permanent injunctions restraining that company from arranging the issue or acquisition of the Blockchain Mining Product, arranging interests in the NGS Digital Mining Scheme, dealing with investor funds, promoting those products in Australia, providing financial product advice, carrying on a financial services business in Australia, and providing financial services on behalf of another financial services business. Justice Collier noted that an earlier order made on 18 December 2024 gave effect to that relief in ASIC’s favour.

The case also involved earlier freezing and receivership orders. Orders made by Meagher J on 10 April 2024, later varied by Derrington J on 30 April 2024, appointed joint and several receivers and or receivers’ managers over digital currency assets held or controlled by defendants. Those orders also required delivery up of books, records and things relating to digital currency assets, restrained dealings with those assets, and required affidavit evidence about where the digital currency assets were located.

The third and fifth defendants then tried to unwind those protective measures. By interlocutory application dated 27 May 2024, they sought orders rescinding or discharging the freezing orders, ending the receivers’ appointment, requiring the receivers to return material and information, and requiring ASIC to pay the receivers’ costs. In the alternative, they sought variations to definitions and operative parts of the freezing regime.

Justice Collier heard the application in June 2024. In No 3 [2024] FCA 822, the Court refused the interlocutory relief sought in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the application and reserved costs. The balance of the application, described later as the variation application, was not pressed and was dismissed by consent in August 2024, with costs again reserved.

There was also an insolvency development. The second defendant defended the proceeding until 12 August 2024, when it was placed in liquidation. ASIC later obtained leave on 9 September 2024 to continue the proceeding against it, but on the basis that ASIC would not enforce any order for costs against the second defendant without leave of the Court. After that, the second defendant did not participate further.

The legal issue was narrow but important. Under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Court has jurisdiction and discretion to award costs. Justice Collier also referred to the general principle that a successful party is ordinarily entitled to its costs.

The practical question was how that discretion should be exercised after earlier judgments in this proceeding. The answer was not the same for every defendant. The Court had to separate out the second defendant, the interlocutory application brought by the third and fifth defendants, and the still-unfinished position of the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants while receivers remained appointed.

For the second defendant, the issue was whether ASIC had been sufficiently successful in the proceeding against that company to justify a costs order, despite the company having gone into liquidation. For the interlocutory application, the issue was whether ASIC should recover its costs after defeating the attempt to rescind or discharge the freezing and receivership orders. For the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, the issue was whether costs should be decided immediately or postponed because the receivership and associated asset disposition process were still continuing.

The judgment also records that, shortly before a listed case management hearing, ASIC informed the Court that the second and sixth defendants did not intend to make submissions on costs, the fourth defendant agreed that costs concerning him could remain reserved, and the fifth defendant consented to ASIC’s position on costs. That meant the Court could determine the issue on the papers.

Justice Collier held that ASIC was successful against the second defendant. The Court pointed to several uncontroversial matters: the second defendant had defended the proceeding until it entered liquidation on 12 August 2024, ASIC had obtained leave to continue the proceeding against it, ASIC had specifically sought permanent injunctive relief against it in the amended originating process, and an earlier order had granted that relief in ASIC’s favour. No reason had been put to the Court why ASIC should not receive its costs of the proceeding as against that defendant. The Court therefore ordered the second defendant to pay ASIC’s costs of the proceeding as against the second defendant.

That order does not mean ASIC could immediately enforce the costs order in the ordinary way. The judgment expressly records that when leave was granted to continue the proceeding against the second defendant, it was on the basis that ASIC would not enforce any order for costs against the second defendant without leave of the Court. So the costs liability was ordered, but enforcement remained controlled because of the liquidation context.

The Court also held that ASIC was wholly successful in relation to the interlocutory application filed by the third and fifth defendants on 27 May 2024. That application sought to rescind or discharge the freezing orders, terminate the receivers, require return of material and information, and have ASIC pay the receivers’ costs. Justice Collier had refused the main relief in No 3, and the remaining variation application was later dismissed by consent. No reason had been submitted to deny ASIC its costs of that interlocutory contest.

However, the formal costs order is important. The Court ordered that the fifth defendant pay ASIC’s costs of that interlocutory application. It did not make a corresponding formal order against the third defendant in this judgment, even though the reasons describe ASIC as wholly successful in respect of the application brought by the third and fifth defendants.

For the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, the Court took a different course. ASIC had sought travel restraint orders against the fourth defendant and broader relief under section 1323 of the Corporations Act against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants to restrain dealings with digital currency assets and require disclosure and delivery of information about those assets. ASIC submitted that final determination of costs should be delayed until the receivership ended and the associated disposition of digital currency assets had been dealt with.

Justice Collier said it was not ideal to prolong finalisation of the proceeding, including costs, but accepted that the receivers remained appointed and noted that the fourth defendant did not oppose delaying final determination of costs. On balance, the Court reserved costs otherwise relating to the plaintiff and the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants pending discharge of the receivers. ASIC was then required to notify Justice Collier’s chambers within 14 days after the receivers are discharged and state whether it seeks costs against those defendants.

This case is not a ruling on whether a crypto product or scheme was lawful. Its practical value lies elsewhere. It shows how regulatory litigation can keep producing financial exposure after the main merits issues have largely been decided. Costs can be allocated by defendant, by application and by procedural stage. That matters because businesses often focus on the headline injunctions or freezing orders and underestimate the separate cost consequences that follow.

The first practical point is that if ASIC succeeds against your company and there is no strong reason to depart from the usual rule, the Court is likely to award ASIC its costs. The second practical point is that an unsuccessful interlocutory application can create its own costs liability. Here, the attempt to rescind or discharge freezing and receivership orders did not succeed, and that led to a separate costs order against the fifth defendant.

The third point is that insolvency does not automatically remove costs exposure. The second defendant went into liquidation, yet the Court still made a costs order against it. The important qualification is enforcement. Because ASIC had leave to continue the proceeding only on the basis that it would not enforce any costs order without leave of the Court, liquidation affected how the order could be enforced, not whether the order could be made.

The fourth point is that where receivers remain appointed and asset preservation issues are still active, the Court may postpone final costs decisions. That can leave businesses and individuals with unresolved exposure for a significant period. In practical terms, if your business is dealing with digital assets, investor funds or cross-border structures, you should expect the Court to pay close attention to control of assets, records and compliance with preservation orders before final costs are sorted out.

The judgment highlights several kinds of conduct and documents that can become central in ASIC litigation involving digital assets. Earlier orders required delivery up of books, records and things relating to digital currency assets, as well as affidavit evidence about where those assets were located. That tells business owners something important: if your operations involve wallets, exchanges, custodians, investor funds or offshore structures, the Court may expect clear evidence about control, location and movement of assets.

The judgment also refers to travel restraint orders sought against the fourth defendant, including orders preventing departure from Australia, requiring delivery up of passports, and restraining applications for new travel documents. Those orders were not decided in this costs judgment, but they show the breadth of protective relief that can sit alongside asset preservation orders in a regulator case.

Another trigger point is the decision to challenge freezing orders or receivership. The third and fifth defendants sought rescission, discharge and alternative variations. That kind of application can be commercially necessary in some cases, but this judgment shows the downside if it fails. The Court treated ASIC as wholly successful on that interlocutory contest and made a costs order accordingly.

Finally, the judgment shows that procedural status matters. The second defendant’s liquidation changed participation in the case and affected enforcement of any costs order. The continuing appointment of receivers affected whether costs for the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants should be decided immediately. In other words, costs outcomes are shaped not only by who wins, but also by what stage the proceeding has reached and what protective orders remain on foot.

The key dates in this judgment show how long costs issues can remain alive after major procedural events. Freezing orders were first made in April 2024 and varied later that month. The interlocutory application to undo those orders was filed in May 2024. The main part of that application was refused in July 2024, and the balance was dismissed by consent in August 2024. The second defendant entered liquidation in August 2024, and ASIC obtained leave in September 2024 to continue against it subject to a restriction on enforcing any costs order without leave.

Justice Collier delivered No 5 in December 2025, making no order as to costs for the first and third defendants and reserving costs for the second, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. ASIC then filed costs submissions, and this No 6 judgment was delivered on 3 March 2026. Even then, the costs position was not fully finalised because costs concerning the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants remained reserved pending discharge of the receivers.

The practical effect of reserving those costs is straightforward. ASIC must notify Justice Collier’s chambers within 14 days after the receivers are discharged and say whether it still seeks costs against the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. Until that happens, those costs issues remain open.