Re Austsino Resources Group Ltd
Case
•
[2018] FCA 883
•13 June 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Austsino Resources Group Ltd [2018] FCA 883
[2018] FCA 883
13 June 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved in this case are Austsino Resources Group Ltd, the issuer of securities, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which has an interest in ensuring compliance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The dispute arises from a failure to admit shares for quotation within the timeframe prescribed by sections 723(3)(b) and 724(1)(b)(ii) of the Corporations Act. Austsino sought an extension of this period under section 1322(4) of the Act. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief.
The legal issues before the court were whether the prescribed conditions for granting an extension under section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act were met, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay, Austsino's promptness in seeking the extension, and whether the extension would unfairly prejudice any party. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that the Corporations Act is not circumvented in a way that could lead to unfair outcomes for other parties.
The court found that Austsino had acted promptly and properly upon being alerted by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) about the expiration of the three-month period. The court considered that the circumstances warranted the granting of the relief sought, as there was no reason for the court not to exercise its discretion. The court acknowledged that section 1322 of the Corporations Act allows the court to excuse failures that would otherwise invalidate share issues, provided certain conditions are met. The court concluded that the circumstances of this case justified the making of the curative orders sought by Austsino.
The court granted the application for an extension, setting the new deadline for the admission to quotation of securities by the ASX as five business days after the making of the order. Austsino was also required to lodge a copy of the orders with ASIC and make an announcement to the ASX disclosing the terms of the orders. The court further provided that any interested or affected party had the liberty to apply to vary these orders, provided they gave 72 hours prior written notice. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
The legal issues before the court were whether the prescribed conditions for granting an extension under section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act were met, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay, Austsino's promptness in seeking the extension, and whether the extension would unfairly prejudice any party. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that the Corporations Act is not circumvented in a way that could lead to unfair outcomes for other parties.
The court found that Austsino had acted promptly and properly upon being alerted by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) about the expiration of the three-month period. The court considered that the circumstances warranted the granting of the relief sought, as there was no reason for the court not to exercise its discretion. The court acknowledged that section 1322 of the Corporations Act allows the court to excuse failures that would otherwise invalidate share issues, provided certain conditions are met. The court concluded that the circumstances of this case justified the making of the curative orders sought by Austsino.
The court granted the application for an extension, setting the new deadline for the admission to quotation of securities by the ASX as five business days after the making of the order. Austsino was also required to lodge a copy of the orders with ASIC and make an announcement to the ASX disclosing the terms of the orders. The court further provided that any interested or affected party had the liberty to apply to vary these orders, provided they gave 72 hours prior written notice. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Corporate Law & Governance
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Re Matador Mining Ltd [2021] WASC 132
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Re Matador Mining Ltd
[2021] WASC 132
Re Kinetiko Energy Ltd;
[2020] WASC 169
Re Jaxsta Ltd; Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd
[2018] WASC 390
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
1
Re Solco Ltd
[2015] FCA 635
Taruga Gold Limited, in the matter of Taruga Gold Limited
[2015] FCA 892
Re Wave Capital Ltd
[2003] FCA 969