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
-
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…
-
ACCC publishes guidance on cash acceptance industry codes
From 1 January 2026, new cash acceptance obligations have commenced under industry codes applying to supermarkets and fuel retailers, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In March 2026, the ACCC published guidance on these newly enforced regulations, reminding retailers to consider their obligations before penalties apply on 1 July 2026.
-
ESS vs ESOP – what’s the difference?
Employee share schemes (ESS) and employee share option plans (ESOP) are commonly used by corporations to incentivise employees and align performance with company growth by providing them with an interest in the company. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal and structural differences under Australian law. This article explains the key…
-
Disputed ESOP – Selak v National Tiles Co Pty Ltd
In the case of Selak v National Tiles, the Vic Supreme Court considered whether a company breached an option agreement governed by the terms of an Employee Share Option Plan (ESOP) by requiring an option holder to execute an undisclosed shareholders’ agreement as a condition of exercising vested options.
-
Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages
On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).
-
Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232. These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders. While primarily…
-
Business Lawyer
Business Lawyer, commercial and contracts and advisory lawyer, 4-10 years PAE, and $ negotiable performance based, depending on experience.
