As of 21 March 2021, the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No 3) 2020 (Cth) (Determination) lapsed because it reached the end of its six (6) month period as prescribed by section 9(3) of the Determination. This means that the ability for companies to execute documents electronically, or e-signing, is no longer acceptable under subsection 127(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). Section 6(3)-(4) of the Determination authorised e-signing in response to the COVID-19 restrictions, as stated in the Explanatory Statement:
“…in this uncertain time when public health and travel restrictions and postal delays remain in place. This gives certainty that when company officers sign a document electronically (including an electronic document), the document has been validly executed.”
The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Cth) (Bill) intends to extend e-signing until 16 September 2021.[1] However, the Bill has been adjourned by the Senate until 11 May 2021.[2] As there are no other regulatory reliefs or permanent legislation in place, companies are required to return to pre-COVID conditions when executing documents. This means signatories are required to sign the same ‘static’ document.[3] The signatories must be either:
- two (2) directors of the company;
- one (1) director and one (1) secretary of the company; or
- the sole director for a proprietary company when they are also the secretary.[4]
Takeaways
Companies can no longer execute documents by e-signing. They should return to the framework for document execution provided under section 127(1) of the Act.
Links and further references
Legislation
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 18 March 2021, 99 (Amanda Stroker, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General)
Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 3) 2020 (Cth) Explanatory Statement
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum
Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No 3) 2020 (Cth)
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Cth)
Cases
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Pickard [2019] SASC 123
Further information about directors duties
If you need advice on your obligations as the officer of a company, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
[1] See Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Cth) sch 1; see also Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Cth) Explanatory Memorandum, 3.
[2] See Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 18 March 2021, 99 (Amanda Stroker, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General).
[3] See Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Pickard [2019] SASC 123, [70].
[4] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 127(1).
Related insights about directors duties
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
-
Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview
Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles. The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …
-
Coercive control and shareholder oppression
The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code). This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…
-
Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026
On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1] If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027. The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…
-
Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?
Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.
-
White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide
Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed. Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…
-
White Anting: serious misconduct?
White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within. White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt. White Anting has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…
