Sprintex Limited [No 2]

The case of Sprintex Limited [No 2] involved the plaintiff, Sprintex Limited, which was seeking curative orders under section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The plaintiff's application stemmed from its failure to lodge annual reports within the required timeframe stipulated in section 319(3)(a) and its issuance of notices under section 708(5)(e) that falsely stated compliance with chapter 2M. Additionally, the plaintiff had undertaken various share issues requiring validation, which were left unaddressed due to these failures. The plaintiff's application was further complicated by the refusal of its former company secretary and chief financial officer to provide affidavit evidence in support of the application.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the plaintiff was entitled to curative orders under section 1322(4) of the Corporations Act, given its past failures to comply with certain statutory requirements. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's failures to issue cleansing notices or prospectuses under section 708A(5)(e) and 708A(11) warranted relief, considering the specific facts of the case. The court also needed to decide on the appropriateness of a usual costs order and whether the costs of the proceeding should be borne by the shareholders, taking into account the importance of regulatory compliance and the protection of shareholders' interests. The relevance of prior contraventions of the Corporations Act, both by the plaintiff and another entity, as well as the failure to develop and implement compliance protocols, played a crucial role in the court's reasoning.

The court found that it was appropriate to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff, emphasizing that each case turned on its own facts. The court considered the importance of regulatory compliance and the protection of shareholders' interests, along with the plaintiff's prior contraventions and lack of compliance protocols. In determining the nature of the costs orders, the court concluded that the costs of the proceeding should be borne by the shareholders. This decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, highlighting the need for careful consideration of each application on its own merits.