28 Feb 2014
Where the proviso in s111(1) is not relied upon, the court will grant an order extending time to convene the first annual general meeting to cure the breach and such an order should be made to cover the calendar year of incorporation and the following calendar year; the applicant's order was granted accordingly.
28 Oct 2013
The court refused the retrospective orders because the explanations were inadequate and the breaches were more plausibly due to indifference or cost avoidance rather than inadvertence; multiple, similar retrospective applications with a common, insufficient explanation and the prospect of a listing did not justify exercising the court's discretion to grant relief.
28 Oct 2013
The court refused relief because the breaches were not shown to be inadvertent but were more consistent with indifference or avoidance of compliance costs across a group of companies; the applicants provided insufficient explanation and justification for retrospective orders and thus the court would not exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought.
28 Oct 2013
The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant retrospective relief because the breaches were not shown to be inadvertent but were more consistent with indifference or deliberate avoidance; the evidence was generic, did not explain the extensive, systemic failures in a sophisticated corporate group, and the mere desire to facilitate a listing was not a compelling justification for retrospective orders.