FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
In the matter of Australian Wealth Management Pty Limited [2005] FCA 311
Re Golden Gate Petroleum Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1119 applied
IN THE MATTER OF AUSTRALIAN WEALTH MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
NSD 217 OF 2005HELY J
15 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 217 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN WEALTH MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
PLAINTIFF
JUDGE:
HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the time for making an application pursuant to s 723(3) and s 724(1)(b) for the admission of the securities the subject of the disclosure document lodged by the plaintiff with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission on 3 February 2005 (‘the Prospectus’) to quotation be extended until 5 pm on 16 February 2005.
2.The plaintiff serve a copy of these orders on the Australian Securities & Investment Commission by 5 pm today.
3.Notice of the terms of these orders be given to the persons who have accepted the offer made in the Prospectus.
4.Any of those persons who claim to have suffered substantial injustice by reason of these orders shall have liberty to apply to vary or discharge these orders for a period of 21 days from receipt of the notice referred to in Order 3.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 217 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN WEALTH MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
PLAINTIFFJUDGE:
HELY J
DATE:
15 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The nature of this application and the circumstances in which it comes to be made are described in a document styled ‘Submissions for the Applicant’ which I have placed with the papers so that they form part of the Court record. I will not endeavour to summarise the contents of that document here.
No person has been joined as a defendant to this application. However, it is sufficient for present purposes if I record the following. First, the application is of a type frequently made without the joinder of a defendant. Second, in a letter from the Australian Stock Exchange (‘the ASX’) to the plaintiff’s solicitors dated 15 February 2005, the ASX has confirmed that it is not aware of any reason why if the Court were to grant the orders sought by the company, the ASX would not proceed in the usual way to grant quotation of the securities. Third, in a letter dated 15 February 2005, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (‘ASIC’) has confirmed that it has no objection to the making of the orders sought.
I am satisfied on the materials before me that the failure to make the application to the ASX within the prescribed time was due to inadvertence. The terms of the share issue are such that it has been made to 83 financial planners, who have accepted the offers contained in the prospectus, upon the basis that they will receive one free share for every four shares accepted. As such, on the basis of the material which is before me, it appears that no person would suffer substantial injustice were I to make the orders sought.
However, the effect of making the orders would be that 83 people who are not parties to this application and who have no notice of it would lose a right to which they are entitled by statute to extricate themselves from the commitment flowing from their acceptance of the offers contained in the prospectus. It may be very unlikely that they would wish to take advantage of that entitlement, but nonetheless it seems to me to be consistent with principle that their entitlement to do so should be preserved at least for a short period. That is certainly the approach which was adopted by Lee J in Re Golden Gate Petroleum Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1119.
I therefore make the following orders:
1.Pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the time for making an application pursuant to s 723(3) and s 724(1)(b) for the admission of the securities the subject of the disclosure document lodged by the plaintiff with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission on 3 February 2005 (‘the Prospectus’) to quotation be extended until 5 pm on 16 February 2005.
2.The plaintiff serve a copy of these orders on the Australian Securities & Investment Commission by 5 pm today.
3.Notice of the terms of these orders be given to the persons who have accepted the offer made in the Prospectus.
4.Any of those persons who claim to have suffered substantial injustice by reason of these orders shall have liberty to apply to vary or discharge these orders for a period of 21 days from receipt of the notice referred to in Order 3.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. Associate:
Dated: 29 March 2005
Counsel for the Plaintiff: K Rees Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 15 February 2005 Date of Judgment: 15 February 2005
- AGLC
- In the matter of Australian Wealth Management Pty Limited [2005] FCA 311
- Case
- [2005] FCA 311
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the extension of time for making an application for the admission of securities to quotation was necessary to prevent substantial injustice to the persons who had accepted the offer made in the Prospectus, and if so, whether the Court should grant the extension of time. The Court needed to consider the provisions of s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for an extension of time.
In determining the application, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for an extension of time and that the extension was necessary to prevent substantial injustice to the persons who had accepted the offer made in the Prospectus. The Court noted that the Prospectus had been lodged with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission on 3 February 2005 and that the time for making an application for the admission of securities to quotation was set to expire on 15 February 2005. The plaintiff had applied for an extension of time to 5 pm on 16 February 2005, which would allow the plaintiff to complete the necessary steps to ensure that the securities could be quoted on the stock exchange. The Court found that the extension of time was necessary to prevent substantial injustice to the persons who had accepted the offer made in the Prospectus and that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for an extension of time. The Court granted the extension of time and ordered the plaintiff to serve a copy of the orders on the Australian Securities & Investment Commission and to give notice of the terms of the orders to the persons who had accepted the offer made in the Prospectus. The Court also ordered that any of those persons who claimed to have suffered substantial injustice by reason of the orders shall have liberty to apply to vary or discharge these orders for a period of 21 days from receipt of the notice referred to in Order 3.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the time for making an application pursuant to s 723(3) and s 724(1)(b) for the admission of the securities the subject of the disclosure document lodged by the plaintiff with the Australian Securities & Investment Commission on 3 February 2005 (‘the Prospectus’) to quotation be extended until 5 pm on 16 February 2005.
2. The plaintiff serve a copy of these orders on the Australian Securities & Investment Commission by 5 pm today.
3. Notice of the terms of these orders be given to the persons who have accepted the offer made in the Prospectus.
4. Any of those persons who claim to have suffered substantial injustice by reason of these orders shall have liberty to apply to vary or discharge these orders for a period of 21 days from receipt of the notice referred to in Order 3.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: HELY J
Full text does not contain this section.