In the Matter of Chameleon Mining NL [2009] NSWSC 660

In the Matter of Chameleon Mining NL [2009] NSWSC 660

Because there was no excluded information requiring disclosure and the evidence showed compliance with the relevant requirements of s 708A(5)(a)-(d), it was unlikely that substantial injustice would be caused by extending time. The purpose of Pt 6D.2 would be met by permitting the notice, and the likely burden on allottees if relief were refused outweighed the unlikely risk of injustice to third parties. Consequential deeming and publication orders were appropriate to provide clarity and allow affected persons to apply to vary or revoke the orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Corporations Application Under S 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application for Extension of Time to Give Notice Under S 708 A(6)
Outcome
Application granted; orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled and dated by the Court.
Legal Topics
['share Placement' 'disclosure Requirements' 'sale Offers That Do Not Need Disclosure' 'extension of Time' 'continuous Disclosure']
['corporations Law'] ['share Placement' 'disclosure Requirements' 'sale Offers That Do Not Need Disclosure' 'extension of Time' 'continuous Disclosure']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Application Under S 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application for Extension of Time to Give Notice Under S 708 A(6)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time for the plaintiff company to give a notice under s 708A(6) should be extended under s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether consequential or ancillary orders should deem a notice given within the extended period to have taken effect as if given within five business days after issue of the securities.' 'Whether substantial injustice was likely to be caused by the failure to lodge a compliant notice within time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no excluded information requiring disclosure and the evidence showed compliance with the relevant requirements of s 708A(5)(a)-(d), it was unlikely that substantial injustice would be caused by extending time. The purpose of Pt 6D.2 would be met by permitting the notice, and the likely burden on allottees if relief were refused outweighed the unlikely risk of injustice to third parties. Consequential deeming and publication orders were appropriate to provide clarity and allow affected persons to apply to vary or revoke the orders.

Court Disposition

Application granted; orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled and dated by the Court.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order initialled and dated 8 July 2009.' "The orders were to include provision for publication on the plaintiff's website of the orders and of the liberty for any interested party to apply to vary or revoke the orders within 28 days."]