Biron Capital Limited [2005] FCA 1228

Biron Capital Limited [2005] FCA 1228

The Court granted the extension because it was satisfied that no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused. The failure to lodge the quotation application within seven days appeared to be an inadvertent electronic failure rather than negligence or malpractice; no applications for shares had been received and no securities had been issued; ASIC and ASX did not oppose the application; the underwriter supported it; and adherence to the prospectus timetable was important to shareholders, intending shareholders, the public, the underwriting and the proposed acquisitions. Refusing relief would jeopardise those arrangements, while granting relief would preserve them without...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Extend Time for Making an Application for Quotation Under a Prospectus / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; extension of time ordered; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['prospectus' 'application for Quotation of Securities' 'extension of Time' 'irregularities Under the Corporations Act' 'substantial Injustice']
['corporations Law'] ['prospectus' 'application for Quotation of Securities' 'extension of Time' 'irregularities Under the Corporations Act' 'substantial Injustice']

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

Application Under S 1322 of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Extend Time for Making an Application for Quotation Under a Prospectus / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should extend the seven-day period referred to in s 723(3)(a) and s 724(1)(b)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the applicant's prospectus dated 4 August 2005." 'Whether the condition in s 1322(6), that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person, was satisfied.' 'Whether any costs order should be made against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted the extension because it was satisfied that no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused. The failure to lodge the quotation application within seven days appeared to be an inadvertent electronic failure rather than negligence or malpractice; no applications for shares had been received and no securities had been issued; ASIC and ASX did not oppose the application; the underwriter supported it; and adherence to the prospectus timetable was important to shareholders, intending shareholders, the public, the underwriting and the proposed acquisitions. Refusing relief would jeopardise those arrangements, while granting relief would preserve them without...

Court Disposition

Application granted; extension of time ordered; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['That the time by which the application is to be served be abridged to a date to be fixed by the Court.' "The period of 7 days referred to in par 723(3)(a) and in sub-par 724(1)(b)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of the prospectus dated 4 August 2005 ('the Prospectus') issued by the applicant both...