21 Jan 2014
Relief under s122(1B) was granted because the infringements were inadvertent, members were kept informed and not prejudiced, the failures resulted from reliance on auditors and not deliberate misconduct, and the Company has taken remedial steps and obtained legal advice making future compliance likely; the procedural irregularity in form of the summons was not fatal to justice.
28 Oct 2013
The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant retrospective extensions because the applicants failed to show the defaults were inadvertent or adequately explained; the common, sparse, group‑wide justifications suggested indifference or an attempt to avoid compliance costs; multiple retrospective applications for listing require compelling justification which was not provided, therefore the originating summonses were dismissed.
28 Oct 2013
Relief under section 122 is granted because the breaches for 1995–2012 were found to be inadvertent, affected shareholders were sufficiently apprised of the company's finances and not prejudiced, consent or evidence of awareness was obtained from affected shareholders, audited accounts have now been prepared and laid, and adequate remedial steps and undertakings (including an Asiafair disclosure undertaking) have been given to ensure future compliance.
24 Jun 2013
The court exercised its discretion under ss111 and 122 to regularise the breaches because the members were fully conversant with the companies' positions and not prejudiced, the failures were inadvertent and attributable in part to reliance on service providers, and the applicants (and undertaking by the third director) gave assurances of future compliance.
4 Feb 2013
Extension granted because the court was satisfied on the three-factor test: shareholders were not prejudiced as the annual report had been circulated and uploaded, the delay was inadvertent due to an auditor dispute and withheld documents which impeded transition to new auditors, and the board had reorganized and given evidence of steps to ensure future compliance; accordingly the court ordered the AGM and the laying of accounts to be extended to 6 February 2013.
31 Aug 2010
Relief under s111(2) and s122(1B) was granted because the defaults were inadvertent, the ultimate owners were aware of the companies' financial positions so shareholders suffered no prejudice, and future compliance was likely; however, relief was conditioned on an undertaking that the applicants notify The Stock Exchange and prospective investors of the order and the reasons for it.
31 Aug 2010
Applying the established factors the court found defaults were inadvertent, shareholders (ultimate beneficial owners) were aware of the financial position and not prejudiced, and future compliance was likely; accordingly extensions under s.111(2) and s.122(1B) were granted subject to an undertaking to notify The Stock Exchange and prospective investors.
22 Apr 2010
The court allowed the application and exercised its discretion under section 122(1B) because the sole shareholder was fully aware of the company's finances (no prejudice), the default was inadvertent, and the company had engaged professional advisers to ensure future compliance, thereby justifying substitution and extension of the statutory requirements.
24 Jul 2009
The court concluded the non-compliance was inadvertent, shareholders were not prejudiced and adequate remedial steps had been taken (accounts prepared, advisers replaced and written resolutions passed), therefore it was appropriate to exercise the discretionary powers under s122(1B) and s111 to regularise the defaults and grant the relief sought.
12 Feb 2008
Relief under section 122(1B) was granted because the failure to lay accounts was inadvertent, there was no wilful default or prejudice to shareholders, audited accounts were prepared and adopted by unanimous written resolution, and the company implemented credible remedial measures and undertakings to ensure future compliance.