Corporate law Brisbane

Electronic document execution by directors

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsElectronic document execution by directors

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

Because of the current COVID-19 restrictions, it has been inconvenient and even impossible (in some cases) for directors to sign documents in what’s known as “wet-ink”.  In order to address this issue the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 1) 2020 (Cth) (Determination) has been published by the Federal Government.  The Determination modifies the operation of section 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) and other legislation in relation to the conduct of meetings and the execution of documents by companies.  The meaning of “Document” has been amended to include a document in electronic form.

Changes to method of execution of documents by companies

Section 6 of the Determination modifies subsection 127(1) of the Act by defining a document as one that can be in electronic form.  Subsection 6(3) and (4) provide:

(3)  A company may also execute a document without using a common seal if each person specified in paragraph 127(1)(a), (b) or (c), as the case requires, of the Act either:

(a)  signs a copy or counterpart of the document that is in a physical form; or
(b)  complies with subsection (4) of this section in relation to an electronic communication (within the meaning of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999).

The copy, counterpart or electronic communication must include the entire contents of the document, but need not include the signature of another person signing the document nor any material included in the document because of subsection (4) of this section.

(4)  A person complies with this subsection if:

(a)  a method is used to identify the person in the electronic communication and to indicate the person’s intention in respect of the contents of the document; and
(b)  the method:

(i)  is as reliable as appropriate for the purpose for which the company is executing the document, in light of all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement; or
(ii)  is proven in fact to have fulfilled the functions described in paragraph (a), by itself or together with further evidence.

According to the Explanatory Statement to the Determination the electronic signature of a document by a company officer can be completed by:

pasting a copy of a signature into a document;

signing PDF documents with a finger or stylus on a smartphone, tablet or laptop; or

using a cloud-based signature platforms like DocuSign.[1]

The Explanatory Statement also states that:

signatories do not need to sign the same physical document. Instead, a document could be signed and scanned by the first signatory and then printed and signed by the second signatory, or separate electronic signatures could be applied to fully electronic versions of the document.  If these elements are satisfied, then an electronic signature applied under section 127 will be effective to execute a document.[2]

This means that most of the contracts signed during the period covered by the Determination will acquire the benefits of the assumptions, as listed in section 129(5).  The Determination applies on a temporary basis until 6 November 2020.

Split Execution

For purposes of section 127(1) of the Act, the Determination also provides for company officers to sign various copies of the same document.  This modification means a document is allowed to be signed and scanned by the first signatory and then printed and signed by the second signatory, or separate electronic signatures could be applied to fully electronic copies of the document.  This enabled flexibility for each respective company officers to sign their own copy or counter part of the document in different locations.

Do these changes apply to deeds?

Uncertainty arises as to whether the modification of the common law position applies to physical deeds.  It is noted that there is no explicit reference made to deeds in the Determination.  The Explanatory Statement has however indicated that section 127 of the Act is modified to ‘allow use of an electronic signature to meet requirements for a signature’ with no specifications of the type of document to which this modified rule takes in effect. The modified rules set out by the Determination were made by the Treasurer on 5 May 2020 and came into effect on 6 May 2020.

Takeaways

Practical relief for the requirement of companies executing documents is provided under section 127(1) of the Act, where document signing process for company officers are simplified.  These changes made by the Determination apply for six months and will be repealed on 6 November 2020.

Legislation

Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 1) 2020 (Cth)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Explanatory Statement to the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 1) 2020

Cases

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (ACN 068 049 178) & Ors v Kenneth Ross Pickard & Anor [2019] SASC 123

Further information

If you need assistance with the legal practicalities of doing business, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.

[1] Explanatory Statement to the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 1) 2020 page 4, para 2.

[2] Explanatory Statement to the Corporations (Coronavirus Economic Response) Determination (No. 1) 2020 page 4, para 2.


Related insights

  • Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1]  Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…

    Read more …

  • Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…

    Read more …

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    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…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    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…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    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…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    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. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    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…

    Read more …


Send this to a friend