Day, in the matter of a Bliss Clinic Pty Limited v Goodwin (No 2)

This case involves an application for orders to rectify the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) register, injunctive relief and declaration. The plaintiff, Christine Day, applied to the court against Bridget Anne Goodwin, the first defendant, regarding the company A Bliss Clinic Pty Ltd (Company). The first defendant had lodged documents with ASIC that altered the company's details, including the director, secretary, shareholding, and registered address. The plaintiff sought to rectify the ASIC register on the basis that the first defendant had acted without authority and the changes were not justified. The court was required to determine whether the changes to the register were justified on the basis of an agreement between the parties and whether the deed of amendment to alter the beneficiary of the trust was valid. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there would be substantial injustice to the first defendant if the orders to rectify the register were made.

The court found that the first defendant had lodged the documents with ASIC without the plaintiff's authority, and the changes were not justified. The court held that the deed of amendment to alter the beneficiary of the trust was invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court also found that there would be no substantial injustice to the first defendant if the orders to rectify the register were made. The court granted the orders sought by the plaintiff, including rectifying the ASIC register, restraining the first defendant from lodging certain notifications with ASIC, and restraining the first defendant from representing herself as an officer of the Company without authority. The court also ordered the first defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff's application.

In summary, the court allowed the plaintiff's application for orders to rectify the ASIC register, injunctive relief, and a declaration. The court found that the first defendant had acted without authority and the changes to the ASIC register were not justified. The court also held that the deed of amendment to alter the beneficiary of the trust was invalid. The court restrained the first defendant from lodging certain notifications with ASIC and representing herself as an officer of the Company without authority. The first defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff's application.