Corporate law Brisbane

Director resignations – effects from 18 February 2021

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawCorporate lawDirector resignations – effects from 18 February 2021

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–4 minutes

Last year, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Phoenixing Act) was enacted to target illegal phoenix activities, where directors create a new company to continue the business of an existing insolvent company to escape paying outstanding debts.  The Phoenixing Act introduces several amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The changes introduced by the Phoenixing Act mainly seeks to prevent directors from improperly backdating resignations or resigning leaving a company without any directors.

Resignation date

From 18 February 2021, the newly commenced section 203AA of the Corporations Act provides that a resignation of a director will now take effect:

  • If, within 28 days after the day the person stopped being a director of the company, ASIC is notified of that fact, the day the person stopped being a director of the company; or
  • In any other case – the day written notice is lodged with ASIC stating that the person has stopped being a director of the company.

Therefore if the director’s resignation is notified to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) after twenty-eight (28) days of the day the person stopped being a director, the resignation date will be taken to be the date that the written notice is lodged with ASIC.

Under section 203AA(5) of the Corporations Act, It should be noted that a person may apply to ASIC or a Court to fix a different resignation day.  The power to alter a resignation date is discretionary, must be made within a limited timeframe, and any decision is to be determined by a case-to-case basis.

Last director standing

Under section 203AB of the Corporations Act, a director’s resignation will not take effect if the resignation will leave the company with no directors on ASIC records, unless a company is being wound up or other general exceptions such as death of the last director, or where the person did not consent to act as director.

ASIC will now reject the lodgement of Form 484 ‘Change to company details’ or Form 370 ‘Notification by officeholder of resignation or retirement’, where the result would be that the last appointed director ceases their appointment without another director replacing that appointment.

This change is aimed to prevent directors ‘abandoning the ship’ before the company becoming liquidated or otherwise involving in certain wrongdoing.  It will still be applicable regardless of the number of directors resign – therefore if all directors resign on the same day, their resignations will be unsuccessful unless there is one remaining director.

In practice, where internal disputes arise within the company, directors should be mindful of being the ‘last director standing’ and having to be responsible for the former directors’ actions.

With the changes carrying out, it is particularly essential that all directors are fully aware of their obligations and potential liabilities as a director and the timing and circumstances in which they can resign from their position.

Links and further references

Legislation

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020

Further information about the changes to the Corporations Act

If you need advice on how the changes to the Corporations Act may affect you and your company, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about corporate law

  • 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 …

  • 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 …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    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…

    Read more …


Posted

in

, ,
Send this to a friend