SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re PanBio P/L [2000] QSC 366 PARTIES: IN THE MATTER of the Corporations Law
and
IN THE MATTER of PANBIO PTY LTD (ACN 010 728 220)FILE NO/S: S 8848 of 2000 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application for abridgment of time DELIVERED ON: 20 October 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 9 October 2000 JUDGE: Byrne J ORDER: Application dismissed. CATCHWORDS:
CORPORATIONS LAW – SUPERVISION, REGULATION AND CORRECTION – IRREGULARITIES IN PROCEEDINGS – VALIDATING PROVISION – OTHER CASES – conversion of status of company from proprietary to public – application under s1322 Corporations Law to abridge time within which ASIC to register conversion pursuant to s164(4) – whether s1322(4) authorises abridgement of time fixed by s164
Corporations Law, s 164, s 1322(4)
Australasian Memory Pty Ltd v Brien (1998) 45 NSWLR 111, referred to
Re Infomedia Pty Ltd (2000) 34 ASCR 682 followed
Sentron Pty Ltd v. Australian Securities and Investments Commission SCWA COR 253 of 2000, 28/09/00 followedCOUNSEL:
P D McMurdo QC with R P S Jackson for the applicant
K J Bull (sol.) for the Australian Securities and Investments CommissionSOLICITORS:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the applicant
Australian Securities and Investments Commission as an interested party
PanBio Pty Ltd (“PanBio”), a proprietary company limited by shares, specializes in the manufacture and distribution of kits used in the diagnosis of human diseases. PanBio wishes to raise $20 million to fund expansion of its business, both domestically and overseas, by listing its shares on the Australian Stock Exchange. And so it must convert to a public company limited by shares.
Part 2B.7 of Chapter 2B of the Corporations Law, which became effective on 1 July 1998, now prescribes the requirements to “change to a company of a different type”.[1] First, the “company must lodge an application with ASIC”[2] accompanied by the prescribed particulars.[3] Then, by s 164(1) of the Law, to change PanBio’s status:
[1]s 162(1).
[2]s 163(1).
[3]s 163(2)(a), (d).
“ASIC must give notice under subsection (3) that it intends to alter the details of the company’s registration if:
(a) ASIC is satisfied that:
(i) the application complies with s 163 …”.
By s 164(3):
“The notice that ASIC intends to alter the details of the company’s registration must be:
(a) included on the ASIC database; and
(b) published in the Gazette.
The notice must also state that ASIC will alter the details of the company’s registration 1 month after the notice has been published in the Gazette unless an order by a court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal prevents it from doing so.”
Other material provisions of s 164 are:
“(4) Subject to an order made by a court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal within that month, after that month has passed ASIC must alter the details of the company’s registration to reflect the company’s new type.
(7) If ASIC alters the details of a company’s registration under subsection (4), a court is not to make…
Continue reading Re PanBio P/L
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re PanBio P/L [2000] QSC 366
- Case
- [2000] QSC 366
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions and the legislative intent behind them. It considered the purpose of section 164, which sets out a specific timeframe for ASIC to register the conversion of a company's status, and section 1322, which deals with applications to abbreviate time limits in the context of ASIC's registration. The court held that section 1322(4) did not provide the authority to abbreviate the time fixed by section 164, as the two provisions operated in distinct spheres and did not overlap in a manner that would permit such an abridgment. Consequently, the application under section 1322 was dismissed, and the conversion of the company's status remained subject to the original timeframe set by section 164(4).
In light of the court's findings, the orders made were that the application under section 1322 to abbreviate the time within which ASIC was to register the conversion was dismissed. The court confirmed that the statutory timeframes were to be adhered to, and no abridgment was permissible under the provisions in question. This decision reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in corporate procedural matters and highlighted the limits of judicial intervention in such contexts.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed.
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
Full text does not contain this section.