Genetic Technologies Limited, in the matter of Genetic Technologies Limited [2019] FCA 1088

Genetic Technologies Limited, in the matter of Genetic Technologies Limited [2019] FCA 1088

The plaintiff was an interested person and satisfied the pre-conditions for relief under s 1322(6): the failure to lodge the cleansing notice was an honest mistake, the relevant officer acted promptly once the mistake was discovered, and no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused. The Court therefore extended the period for giving a notice under s 708A(5)(e) concerning the Subscription Securities, but refused a proposed deeming order because the notice had not yet been given and s 1322(4)(a) applies to acts, matters or things purporting to have been done.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Remedial Orders Under S 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Urgent Ex Parte Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; extension of time and ancillary orders made, with the proposed deeming order refused.
Legal Topics
['cleansing Notice' 'sale Offers That Do Not Need Disclosure' 'remedial Orders' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Irregularity']
['corporations Law'] ['cleansing Notice' 'sale Offers That Do Not Need Disclosure' 'remedial Orders' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Irregularity']

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

Ex Parte Application for Remedial Orders Under S 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Urgent Ex Parte Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was an interested person for the purposes of s 1322(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether the pre-conditions in s 1322(6) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were satisfied.' 'Whether the Court should extend the period for giving a notice under s 708A(5)(e) and s 708A(6)(a) concerning the issue of the Subscription Securities.' 'Whether a proposed order deeming a future notice to have taken effect as if given within 5 business days should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was an interested person and satisfied the pre-conditions for relief under s 1322(6): the failure to lodge the cleansing notice was an honest mistake, the relevant officer acted promptly once the mistake was discovered, and no substantial injustice had been or was likely to be caused. The Court therefore extended the period for giving a notice under s 708A(5)(e) concerning the Subscription Securities, but refused a proposed deeming order because the notice had not yet been given and s 1322(4)(a) applies to acts, matters or things purporting to have been done.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; extension of time and ancillary orders made, with the proposed deeming order refused.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 1322(4)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), the 5 business day period referred to in s 708A(6)(a) of the Act is extended to the second business day after the day on which these orders are entered with respect to the giving of a notice under s 708A(5)(e) concerning the issue of 1,476,143...