Re Pilbara Minerals Ltd

Case [2021] WASC 330


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RE PILBARA MINERALS LTD; EX PARTE PILBARA MINERALS LTD [2021] WASC 330

CORAM:   HILL J

HEARD:   30 JULY 2021

DELIVERED          :   30 JULY 2021

PUBLISHED           :   29 SEPTEMBER 2021

FILE NO/S:   COR 128 of 2021

MATTER:   IN THE MATTER OF PILBARA MINERALS LTD

EX PARTE

PILBARA MINERALS LTD

Plaintiff


Catchwords:

Corporations law - Securities - Application for orders extending the period for issuing cleansing notices under s 708A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Securities issued without valid cleansing notice - Where trading of securities prior to issue of cleansing notice - Where no blatant or flagrant disregard of obligations - Where no substantial injustice if orders made

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 707, s 708A, s 1322

Result:

Application granted

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : A J Papamatheos

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Allen & Overy

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Blaze Asset Pty Ltd v Target Energy Ltd [2009] FCA 698; (2009) 177 FCR 488

Re Austpac Resources NL [2010] NSWSC 1438

Re Beadell Resources Ltd [2013] FCA 13

Re Caeneus Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 560

Re Charter Hall Ltd [2007] FCA 1316

Re Classic Minerals Ltd [2018] FCA 2039

Re Diversified United Investment Ltd [2008] FCA 720

Re G8 Communications Ltd [2016] FCA 297; (2016) 112 ACSR 22

Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd [2010] FCA 40; (2010) 77 ACSR 17

Re Helios Energy Ltd [2017] FCA 840; (2017) 122 ACSR 174

Re ICandy Interactive Ltd [2018] FCA 533, (2018) 125 ACSR 369

Re Imdex Ltd [2020] WASC 298

Re Jaxsta Ltd; Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd [2018] WASC 390

Re Micro-X Limited [2019] FCA 1154

Re Poseidon Nickel Ltd [2018] FCA 1063; (2018) 129 ACSR 57

Re RCR Tomlinson Ltd [2009] FCA 1130

Re Wave Capital Ltd [2003] FCA 969; (2003) 47 ACSR 418

Weinstock v Beck [2013] HCA 14; (2013) 251 CLR 396

HILL J:

  1. On 28 July 2020, the plaintiff, Pilbara Minerals Limited (Pilbara Minerals), filed an originating process seeking orders under s 1322(4)(a) and s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in relation to a share issue by the company on 25 June 2021. Pilbara Minerals seeks orders to extend the timeframe under which a cleansing notice may be given under s 708A of the Act, to deem such notice to be effective from 25 June 2021 and to validate any offers or sales of shares between 25 June 2021 and the date of any orders of the court.

  2. Pilbara Minerals has provided a frank and detailed explanation as to the circumstances surrounding the issue of shares on 25 June 2021.  On the basis of the evidence before me, I was and am satisfied that the failure was caused by inadvertence rather than any deliberate disregard of the plaintiff's obligations.

  3. In light of the urgency with which the application was brought, I made orders at the conclusion of the hearing on 30 July…

Continue reading Re Pilbara Minerals Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Pilbara Minerals Ltd [2021] WASC 330
Case
[2021] WASC 330
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pilbara Minerals Limited sought an extension of the time limit for issuing cleansing notices in relation to securities issued by the company without the requisite notices. The dispute came before the Federal Court, which was required to determine whether the circumstances justified an extension of the statutory time limit. The primary legal issue was whether the failure to issue the cleansing notices within the required time period constituted a blatant or flagrant disregard of the corporation's obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court was also required to consider whether the granting of the extension would cause substantial injustice to any party.

The court found that there had been no blatant or flagrant disregard of the corporation's obligations in failing to issue the cleansing notices within the statutory time limit. The company had made reasonable efforts to comply with its obligations, and the delay was not due to any deliberate or reckless behaviour. The court also found that there was no substantial injustice that would be caused to any party if the extension was granted. The securities had been traded on the market prior to the issue of the cleansing notices, and the delay in issuing the notices had not caused any significant harm to the market or to any of the parties involved. The court held that the extension of the time limit was appropriate in the circumstances and granted the application for an extension.

The court ordered that the time limit for issuing the cleansing notices be extended to a date certain. The order was made on the condition that the company take all reasonable steps to ensure that the cleansing notices were issued as soon as possible. The court also ordered that the company pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.