Re Murray River Organics Ltd
[2019] FCA 931
•13 June 2019
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Murray River Organics Limited, in the matter of Murray River Organics Limited [2019] FCA 931
File number(s): VID 418 of 2019 Judge(s): ANDERSON J Date of judgment: 13 June 2019 Date of publication of reasons: 17 June 2019 Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application under s 1322(4)(c) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) for relief of company and its current and former directors and officers from civil liability in respect of failure of company to lodge certain forms and comply with financial reporting obligations – where failure to lodge opt-in notice for relief under ASIC Corporations (Wholly-owned Companies) Instrument 2016/785 – whether persons concerned acted honestly – application under s 1322(4)(d) of Act for extension of time for company to lodge opt-in notice – whether substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person by statutory non-compliance or proposed orders
Held: Application granted – failure to lodge opt-in notice resulted from inadvertence – company and its current former directors and officers are relevantly relieved from any civil liability – extension of time granted for company to lodge opt-in notice
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Pts 2M.3, 9.5 ss 292, 292(1)(b), 301(1), 314, 314(1), 315, 316(1), 316(2), 319(1), 341(1), 1274(11), 1322, 1322(4), 1322(4)(c), 1322(4)(d), 1322(5), 1322(6), 1322(6)(b), 1322(6)(c)
ASIC Corporations (Wholly-owned Companies) Instrument 2016/785 (Cth) ss 5, 6(1)(f)
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lewski (2018) 362 ALR 286; 132 ACSR 403
Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Ltd (2009) 177 FCR 488
Caeneus Minerals Ltd, in the matter of Caeneus Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 560
Clancy Exploration Limited, in the matter of Clancy Exploration Limited [2018] FCA 569
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265
Elderslie Finance Corp Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 11 ACSR 157
Gangemi v Osborne [2009] VSCA 297
In the matter of Order of AHEPA NSW Incorporated [2018] NSWSC 458
Kimberley College Ltd v Davis, in the matter of Kimberley College Ltd [2018] FCA 1102
Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93
Re Compaction Systems Pty Ltd & The Companies Act [1976] 2 NSWLR 477
Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785) (2010) 77 ACSR 17
Re G8 Communications Ltd (ACN 009 076 233) (2016) 112 ACSR 22
Re iCandy Interactive Ltd (2018) 125 ACSR 369
Re Jaxsta Ltd; Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd [2018] WASC 390
Re Phylogica Ltd (2004) 52 ACSR 159
Re Solco Ltd (ACN 084 656 691) (2015) 106 ACSR 591
Re Wave Capital Ltd (ACN 006 031 161) (2003) 47 ACSR 418
Re Wesfarmers Ltd; Ex parte Wesfarmers Ltd (No 2) [2018] WASC 357
Sprint Energy Ltd, in the matter of Sprint Energy Ltd [2012] FCA 1354
Weinstock v Beck (2013) 251 CLR 396
5G Networks Limited, in the matter of 5G Networks Limited [2019] FCA 698
Date of hearing: 13 June 2019 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 48 Counsel for the Plaintiff: Ms C Van Proctor Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Clayton Utz ORDERS
VID 418 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF MURRAY RIVER ORGANICS LIMITED ACN 159 039 175
BETWEEN: MURRAY RIVER ORGANICS LIMITED ACN 159 039 175
Plaintiff
JUDGE:
ANDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 JUNE 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the time specified by ASIC Corporations Instrument 2016/785 (ASIC Instrument) for the Plaintiff to lodge a Form 389 – Opt in/change of holding entity notice by wholly-owned company relieved from financial reporting obligations be extended to a date five days from the date of this order.
2.Under s 1322(4)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the Plaintiff and its current and former directors and officers are relieved from any civil liability in respect of any failure to:
(a)lodge a Form 389 – Opt in/change of holding entity notice by wholly-owned company relieved from financial reporting obligations within four months of the end of the financial year of the Plaintiff for 2017;
(b)have the Plaintiff's financial statements for the financial year ending 2017 and 2018 each later financial year audited before the deadline for that year;
(c)comply with s 319(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth);
(d)comply with s 314(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth);
(e)lodge Form 388 Copy of financial statements and reports for 2017 and 2018 with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; and / or
(f)comply with the notice issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under s 1274(11) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) dated 10 April 2019.
3.The exhibit marked "Confidential Exhibit MJO2" annexed to the affidavit of Matthew John O'Brien dated 23 April 2019 filed in these proceedings ("First O'Brien Affidavit"), being a paginated bundle of correspondence referred to in paragraph 13 of the First O'Brien Affidavit and located at pages 80 to 287 of the First O'Brien Affidavit, be suppressed from public examination.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ANDERSON J:
Introduction
The plaintiff, Murray River Organics Limited (MRO), seeks relief pursuant to ss 1322(4)(c) and (d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) for the purpose of obtaining relief from non-compliance with the financial reporting and lodging requirements in ss 314 and 319(1) of the Act.
On 13 June 2019, I heard MRO’s application. Ms Van Proctor of counsel appeared on behalf of MRO. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), having previously been provided various materials in relation to MRO’s application, did not appear at the hearing. ASIC neither consented nor opposed the proposed orders sought by MRO.
I granted the relief sought by MRO at the hearing and these are my reasons for doing so.
Reporting requirements under the Act
Part 2M.3 of the Act (containing ss 292 to 323DA) sets out the financial reporting requirements for certain entities, including a public company such as MRO. The Act imposed various requirements on MRO, including to:
(a)prepare a financial report and a directors’ report for each financial year: s 292(1)(b);
(b)have the financial report for a financial year audited and obtain an auditor’s report: s 301(1);
(c)report to members for a financial year by providing the financial report for the year and the directors’ report for the year: s 314(1); and
(d)lodge with ASIC a report for a financial year: s 319(1).
A company is entitled to relief from complying with these requirements in certain circumstances. Relevantly for current purposes, ASIC Corporations (Wholly-owned Companies) Instrument 2016/785 (Instrument), made under s 341(1) of the Act, provides a mechanism for relief from compliance with certain financial reporting requirements under the Act (relief) in circumstances where a company within a group of companies has executed a Deed of Cross Guarantee with other companies within that group.
Pursuant to s 5 of the Instrument, a company that is a party to a Deed of Cross Guarantee at the end of a financial year does not have to comply with any of the following requirements of Pt 2M.3 of the Act in relation to the financial year:
(a)to prepare a financial report and a directors’ report under paragraphs 292(1)(b);
(b)to have the financial report audited and to obtain an auditor’s report under subsection 301(1);
(c)to report to its members under s 314 within the time required by s 315; and
(d)to send reports to a member in accordance with a request under s 316(1) within the time required by s 316(2).
Pursuant to s 6(1)(f) of the Instrument, it is necessary for the company seeking relief to lodge with ASIC an “opt-in notice”, using Form 389 entitled “Opt-in/change of holiday entity notice by wholly-owned company relieved from financial reporting obligations” (Form 389), containing a statement that the company has taken advantage of the relief under the Instrument.
Background
MRO relies on two affidavits of Matthew John O’Brien dated 23 April 2019 (First O’Brien Affidavit) and 28 May 2019 and an affidavit of Albert Zago dated 28 May 2019. Mr O’Brien is the Senior Commercial Manager of the ultimate holding company of MRO, Murray River Organics Group Limited (MROG), and the former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of MRO. Mr Zago is the current CFO of MRO. The key matters set out in their affidavits is summarised as follows.
MRO, which is a public company for the purpose of s 292 of the Act, is a member of the group of companies (MRO Group). MROG is the ultimate holding company of MRO and the other companies in the MRO Group.
In about January 2017, the MRO Group sought advice in relation to the availability and processes required to obtain the relief provided by and under the Instrument. MRO’s CFO at that time, Mr O’Brien, had the primary day to day contact (on behalf of MRO) with MRO’s advisors in connection with obtaining the relief.
Following receipt of that advice, Mr O’Brien, on behalf of MRO and the other companies in the MRO Group, instructed one of the legal advisers of the MRO Group to prepare the necessary documents (including a Deed of Cross Guarantee and all necessary forms) to obtain the relief under the Instrument. The Deed of Cross Guarantee was prepared and provided to MRO by its legal advisors.
On 21 February 2017, MRO and the other companies in the MRO Group resolved to enter into the Deed of Cross Guarantee in order to secure the relief and to provide reciprocal guarantees for the liabilities or obligations of companies within the MRO Group for the 2017 and subsequent financial years.
Following further communications between Mr O’Brien and Mr Ian Sinclair (who was a partner of the legal advisers and MRO’s secretary at that time), Mr O’Brien understood that Mr Sinclair would lodge the Deed of Cross Guarantee, and all necessary accompanying forms, with ASIC to obtain the relief.
Consequently, Mr O’Brien and MRO believed that:
(a)all of the steps required to obtain the relief under the Instrument had been undertaken;
(b)the Deed of Cross Guarantee and the accompanying forms had been lodged with ASIC to obtain the relief;
(c)MRO was entitled to and had the benefit of the relief; and
(d)MRO was accordingly exempt from the reporting requirements in ss 314 and 319 of the Act.
On 10 January 2019, MRO was informed by ASIC that MRO had not lodged its financial statements and reports for the 2018 financial year.
On 1 February 2019, MRO advised ASIC that it did not believe that it was required to lodge financial statements or reports for the 2018 financial year because it had the benefit of the relief pursuant to the Instrument. MRO was subsequently advised by ASIC on 12 February 2019 that it had failed to lodge a Form 389 within four months of the end of the 2017 or 2018 financial years and, accordingly, that MRO had not met the conditions of the Instrument for the 2017 and 2018 financial years.
By letter dated 25 March 2019, MRO’s solicitors, Clayton Utz, advised ASIC that:
(a)prior to being advised by ASIC that MRO had failed to lodge a Form 389 within the relevant time, MRO had assumed that all procedural and other steps required under the Instrument had been completed by early 2017;
(b)MRO had accordingly believed and proceeded on the basis that it had the benefit of the relief pursuant to the Instrument for the 2017 and 2018 financial years; and
(c)MRO’s failure to lodge the Form 389 in early 2017 was unintentional, honest and inadvertent.
On 10 April 2019, ASIC issued MRO a notice under s 1274(11) of the Act requiring MRO to lodge its financial statements and reports for the 2018 financial year.
Mr O’Brien, as the CFO of MRO at the time when the Form 389 was initially required to be lodged, has affirmed that he believes the failure by MRO to lodge the Form 389 was unintentional, honest and inadvertent. From early 2017, Mr O’Brien believed that all procedural and other steps required under the Instrument had been completed at that time, and that this included the lodgement of all required forms.
Mr O’Brien’s evidence is that he is not aware of any reason why the former or current directors of the MRO did not act honestly in connection with the steps required to obtain the relief, including any failures or omissions by MRO in seeking to obtain the relief. He is moreover:
(a)not aware of any person or entity that would be prejudiced or adversely affected, or that any injustice is likely to be caused to any person, if the relief sought by MRO is granted; and
(b)not aware of any reason why it would not be just or equitable for the relief sought by MRO to be granted.
Mr Zago, in his capacity as the current CFO of MRO, has also affirmed that, based on his discussions with directors of MRO at a meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee of MRO on 21 February 2019, he believes the directors of MRO acted honestly in connection with the failure by MRO to lodge the Form 389 and that such failure was unintentional, honest and inadvertent.
Mr Zago, like Mr O’Brien, gives evidence that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person, and the basis of his belief is addressed in detail in his affidavit.
Application for relief
On 23 April 2019, MRO filed an originating process in this Court seeking the following relief:
(1)an order pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Act that the time specified by the Instrument for lodging Form 389 be extended until a date determined by the Court; and
(2)an order under s 1322(4)(c) of the Act relieving MRO and its current and former directors and officers from any civil liability in respect of any failure to:
(a)lodge a Form 389 with ASIC within four months of the end of the financial year of MRO for 2017;
(b)have MRO’s financial statements for the financial years ending 2017 and 2018 audited before the deadline for that year;
(c)comply with s 314(1) of the Act;
(d)comply with s 319(1) of the Act;
(e)lodge Form 388 (entitled “Copy of financial statements and reports”) for the financial years of MRO ending 2017 and 2018 with ASIC; and/or
(f)comply with the notice issued by ASIC under s 1274(11) of the Act dated 10 April 2019.
Relevant principles
Section 1322 of the Act is contained within Pt 9.5 of the Act, which is headed “Powers of Courts”. The relevant parts of s 1322 provide as follows:
Irregularities
…
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section but without limiting the generality of any other provision of this Act, the Court may, on application by any interested person, make all or any of the following orders, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Court imposes:
(a) an order declaring that any act, matter or thing purporting to have been done, or any proceeding purporting to have been instituted or taken, under this Act or in relation to a corporation is not invalid by reason of any contravention of a provision of this Act or a provision of the constitution of a corporation;
(b) an order directing the rectification of any register kept by ASIC under this Act;
(c) an order relieving a person in whole or in part from any civil liability in respect of a contravention or failure of a kind referred to in paragraph (a);
(d) an order extending the period for doing any act, matter or thing or instituting or taking any proceeding under this Act or in relation to a corporation (including an order extending a period where the period concerned ended before the application for the order was made) or abridging the period for doing such an act, matter or thing or instituting or taking such a proceeding;
and may make such consequential or ancillary orders as the Court thinks fit.
(5) An order may be made under paragraph (4)(a) or (c) notwithstanding that the contravention or failure referred to in the paragraph concerned resulted in the commission of an offence.
(6) The Court must not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied:
(a) in the case of an order referred to in paragraph (4)(a):
(i) that the act, matter or thing, or the proceeding, referred to in that paragraph is essentially of a procedural nature;
(ii) that the person or persons concerned in or party to the contravention or failure acted honestly; or
(iii) that it is just and equitable that the order be made; and
(b) in the case of an order referred to in paragraph (4)(c)—that the person subject to the civil liability concerned acted honestly; and
(c) in every case—that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person.
Section 1322 of the Act contemplates that there may be instances of non-compliance with the Act and facilitates the validation of non-compliance in certain circumstances: see, eg, Caeneus Minerals Ltd, in the matter of Caeneus Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 560 at [33]. As evident from the extract above, s 1322(4) prescribes when any act, matter or thing purporting to have been done under the Act may be validated. It provides that the Court may, on application by any interested person, make an order, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Court imposes, under any or all of subsections 1322(4)(a) to (d), and may make such consequential or ancillary orders as the Court thinks fit.
In Weinstock v Beck (2013) 251 CLR 396 (Weinstock), Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ observed (at [53]) that s 1322(4) is “cast in very broad terms” and (at [55]) that the provision “is not to be hedged about by any implied limitation”. The broad powers under s 1322(4) reflect a “broad legislative policy that the law should not inflict unnecessary liability or inconvenience or invalidate transactions because of non‐compliance with its requirements where such non‐compliance is the product of honest error or inadvertence and where the court can avoid its effects without prejudice to third parties or to the public interest in compliance with the law”: Re Wave Capital Ltd (ACN 006 031 161) (2003) 47 ACSR 418 (Wave Capital) at [29], quoted in Re Solco Ltd (ACN 084 656 691) (2015) 106 ACSR 591 at [23].
An order may be made under s 1322(4) of the Act notwithstanding that a contravention or failure has resulted in the commission of an offence: s 1322(5).
Section 1322(4)(c)
Section 1322(4)(c) permits the Court to make an order relieving a person from civil liability for a broad range of contraventions or failures, subject to the conditions in s 1322(6) that the person concerned acted honestly and that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lewski (2018) 362 ALR 286; 132 ACSR 403 at [60]. The word “contravention” is to be construed broadly: Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93 (Lock) at [86], quoting Weinstock at [41]-[42].
An order may be made under this provision to relieve a company, and its current and former directors and officers, from any civil liability in respect of any contravention by reason of a failure, inter alia, to lodge forms with ASIC: see, for example, Re Phylogica Ltd (2004) 52 ACSR 159.
No order may be made under s 1322(4)(c) unless the relevant person “acted honestly”: s 1322(6)(b). When determining whether someone has acted honestly for these purposes, the court looks to an absence of evidence of dishonesty: Re G8 Communications Ltd (ACN 009 076 233) (2016) 112 ACSR 22 at [35]; ReiCandy Interactive Ltd (2018) 125 ACSR 369 (iCandy) at [54]. The court will also take into account whether the applicant has taken prompt action to remedy the error: iCandy at [54], citing Sprint Energy Ltd, in the matter of Sprint Energy Ltd [2012] FCA 1354 (Sprint Energy) at [44]; Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd (ABN 090 074 785) (2010) 77 ACSR 17 (Golden Gate) at [48]. Additionally, the concept of “acting honestly” can embrace:
(a)active but incorrect consideration of an issue: Golden Gate at [47];
(b)inadvertence and oversight: 5G Networks Limited, in the matter of 5G Networks Limited [2019] FCA 698 at [13]; and
(c)a failure to turn one’s mind to the relevant issue or to give any consideration to the issue at all: Sprint Energy at [43], citing Golden Gate at [47].
Section 1322(4)(d)
Section 1322(4)(d) of the Act provides that the Court may, on application by any interested person, make an order, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, extending the period for doing any act, matter or thing in relation to a corporation.
This power may be exercised beyond circumstances where the relevant provision of the Act does not in terms impose an obligation to take a step within a particular time frame. It may also apply where the relevant provision of the Act makes compliance with that timeframe a condition for the validity of some other matter: Wave Capital at [30]; In the matter of Order of AHEPA NSW Incorporated [2018] NSWSC 458 (AHEPA NSW) at [31].
In David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265, Gummow J (with whom Brennan CJ, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ agreed) said at 275-276 that s 1322(4)(d)
confers upon the court a broad authority to extend the period for the taking of any step under the Law or any step in relation to a corporation. As a general precept, it is inappropriate to read provisions which confer jurisdiction or grant powers to a court by the making of implications or imposition of limitations not found in the express words of the legislative provision.
(Citations omitted.)
In Re Jaxsta Ltd; Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd [2018] WASC 390, Vaughan J said at [41]-[43]:
… As to s 1322(4)(d), I derived more guidance from the two-stage process embraced by Barker J in Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Ltd [(2009) 177 FCR 488].
There Barker J stated:
[T]he exercise of the power under s 1322(4) [referring to s 1322(4)(d)] involves in effect a two stage process. First, the Court needs to determine whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the general objects of the [Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)] it is appropriate to make an order extending a relevant period, or abridging a relevant period. Secondly, if those circumstances are made out, then the Court must address the question whether any substantial prejudice has been or is likely to be caused to any person by the making of such an order.
Also, the power under s 1322(4)(d) must be exercised having regard to the general objects and purposes of the relevant statutory provision within the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - here the statutory purpose evinced by s 723(3). The court’s order must not undermine the reasons for the requirements of the Act. The power must be exercised having regard to the interests of all parties affected and the public interest in ensuring compliance with the Act.
(Citations otherwise omitted.)
Subsection 1322(6)(c)
The court must not make any order under s 1322 unless it is satisfied that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person: s 1322(6)(c) of the Act; Kimberley College Ltd v Davis, in the matter of Kimberley College Ltd [2018] FCA 1102 at [28]. There are two aspects to this requirement:
(a)the expression “has been” invites an inquiry as to the effect of the irregularity sought to be cured; and
(b)the expression “likely to be” draws attention to the effect of the proposed order: An v Joo [2019] NSWSC 39 at [34].
A degree of prejudice to a person or persons may be outweighed if the overwhelming weight of justice is in favour of making the order: Elderslie Finance Corp Ltd v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 11 ACSR 157 (Elderslie Finance) at 160; An v Joo [2019] NSWSC 39 at [35].
The reference to “substantial injustice” in s 1322(6)(c) is to a real and not insubstantial or theoretical prejudice: Elderslie Finance at 160. Whether there is real injustice requires a weighing of any prejudice if the order is made against the prejudice which would be suffered by the corporation and its directors and officers if an order was not made: Gangemi v Osborne [2009] VSCA 297 at [62], citing Re Compaction Systems Pty Ltd & The Companies Act [1976] 2 NSWLR 477 at 493; see also AHEPA NSW at [25].
One mechanism by which the court may ensure that an order under s 1322(4) does not cause substantial injustice is to make an ancillary order permitting any interested person who may suffer substantial injustice to apply within a set period of time to vary or dissolve the s 1322(4) order: see Sprint Energy at [51]; Clancy Exploration Limited, in the matter of Clancy Exploration Limited [2018] FCA 569 at [36].
Residual discretion
Even if the criteria in 1322(6) are satisfied, the Court retains a residual discretion to decide whether or not to make the orders sought under s 1322(4): Re Wesfarmers Ltd; Ex parte Wesfarmers Ltd (No 2) [2018] WASC 357 at [35]. The public interest is a relevant consideration in the exercise of this discretion: Lock at [98]-[99].
Consideration
No substantial injustice
There is no evidence that suggests any third party could have acted to its detriment as a result of MRO’s non-compliance. I am satisfied that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person. I am also satisfied that public policy will not be undermined by the making of the orders. As I have already observed, MRO’s conduct was the result of inadvertence and did not involve any blatant disregard of the provisions of the Act.
Relief from civil liability
MRO seeks an order under s 1322(4)(c) relieving it and its former and current directors and officers from any civil liability in respect of any failure to do, or comply with, the matters set out above at [23(2)].
I am satisfied on the evidence that the relief under s 1322(4)(c) should be granted because all persons concerned acted honestly and no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person by reason of the contravention, or by the making of the proposed form of order.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the failure to lodge the notice was not dishonest. The evidence supports a conclusion that the failure was the result of inadvertence, rather than any deliberate disregard of MRO’s obligations.
I am satisfied on the evidence that all of the persons who subsequently engaged in any contravention or failure under the Act or the constitution did so in the bona fide belief that the company had been relieved from the requirement to report to members and to lodge financial statements with ASIC: see Sprint Energy at [51].
Extension of time to lodge Form 389
MRO further seeks an order pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) extending the time specified by the Instrument for lodging the opt-in notice—in the form of the Form 389, being a pre-condition to obtaining relief under the Instrument.
I am satisfied on the evidence that it is just and equitable that this order be made. Had the directors of MRO known that a notice had not been lodged with ASIC, I am satisfied that they would have attended to lodgement. The evidence is that the directors believed that the notice had been lodged and they carried out their functions and acted as if the notice had in fact been lodged on time.
Residual discretion
There is, in my opinion, no reason why the Court should exercise its residual discretion so as not to grant the relief sought by MRO.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I made the orders sought by MRO in its originating process.
I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Anderson. Associate:
Dated: 17 June 2019
47
21
2