Corporate law Brisbane

Electronic document execution by directors

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsElectronic document execution by directors

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

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

  • Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Do meta tags amount to trade mark infringement?

    Find out how the case of Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554 highlights the potential risk of trademark infringements to businesses. Read more to discover the case background, takeaways, and tips to protect your business.

    Read more …

  • Electronic document execution by directors

    Electronic document execution by directors

    The Federal Government has issued a ruling allowing companies to sign documents electronically until 6 November 2020. Find out more about how this ruling affects your business.

    Read more …

  • Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.

    Read more …

  • Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?

    Read more …

  • Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    Arbitration clauses in building disputes

    The QCAT decision of 4D Electrical Qld v Greyburn Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 74 shows arbitration can be a more efficient alternative to Court/tribunal litigation. Courts uphold contractual obligations agreed to by parties, proving arbitration is a viable option.

    Read more …

  • $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.

    Read more …

  • Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question.  Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work.   The rights that apply to adaptions…

    Read more …

  • What are sophisticated investors?

    What are sophisticated investors?

    This article provides an overview of the requirements for a person to be a sophisticated investor under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). It covers the definition of ‘person’, the Assets Test and Income Test, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidance, and the complexities of self-managed super funds.

    Read more …

  • Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Insolvent trading – prison for former Kleenmaid director

    Former Kleenmaid director, Andrew Young, sentenced to nine years in prison for fraud, criminal insolvent trading and causing $330,000 to be withdrawn from company bank account. Learn more about Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)’s actions to ensure directors meet their obligations and the consequences of allowing companies to trade whilst insolvent.

    Read more …


Send this to a friend