Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 AUGUST 2021

Changes to continuous disclosure laws passed

Gilchrist Connell
Explore more from Gilchrist Connell

The temporary changes made to continuous disclosure obligations in response to COVID have now been made permanent.

AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Dan Robinson
Dan Robinson
Helen Tieu
Helen Tieu
Katherine Czoch
Katherine Czoch
Author LinkedIn connections

Overview

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 (Bill) introduced by the Australian Federal Government on 17 February 2021 has now passed both Houses of Parliament and will become law once it receives Royal assent.

The Bill makes permanent the temporary relief that was introduced by the Government in response to COVID-19 relating to an entity's continuous disclosure obligations, by making amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (ASIC Act) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

The Bill seeks to amend the Corporations Act and ASIC Act by:

  • removing the objective reasonable person test in the continuous disclosure obligations in sections 674 and 675 of the Corporations Act and replacing it with a test that considers the subjective state of mind, so that entities and officers will only be eligible for a civil penalty where they have acted with 'knowledge, recklessness or negligence' in

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Video

Misrepresentation In Commercial Contracts Under Australian Law

Misrepresentation in commercial contracts can expose businesses to significant legal and financial consequences, particularly where inaccurate statements, misleading disclosures, or unrealistic forecasts induce entry into a transaction. Under Australian law, parties may pursue remedies through both common law misrepresentation claims and statutory misleading or deceptive conduct provisions under the Australian Consumer Law, with potential outcomes including rescission, damages, and compensation orders.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Frustration Of Contract Explained: Can You Legally Walk Away?

Frustration of contract is widely misunderstood in Australian law, with many assuming contracts automatically end when circumstances become difficult or expensive. This guide examines the strict legal test applied by Australian courts, explaining when supervening events truly discharge contractual obligations and why financial hardship, increased costs, and commercial difficulties typically fall short of the frustration threshold.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Force Majeure Clause Risks In Australia Explained

Force majeure clauses in Australian contracts determine whether extraordinary events can suspend, delay, or excuse contractual obligations, but relief depends entirely on precise wording and strict compliance with notice and mitigation requirements. Understanding when businesses can legally invoke force majeure versus when they risk breach of contract claims is critical for managing commercial disruption.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

What Is The Liability Under A Contractor Agreement In Australia?

A contractor agreement determines who pays when work goes wrong. Independent contractors carry their own commercial risk, unlike employees, so the agreement allocates that risk in detail. Liability commonly arises from breach of contract, intellectual property infringement, and breaches of confidentiality. Indemnities, liability caps and insurance requirements are the three tools that allocate it. Australian law puts limits on that allocation. Consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law apply automatically, and no contract can exclude them.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Dividend Payments - Key Issues For Australian Company Directors

Dividends are a common way for companies to distribute value to shareholders, but whether to declare or pay a dividend is not simply a commercial decision. Directors must ensure that any dividend complies with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), the company’s constitution and relevant governance requirements, while considering their duties to the company and its creditors.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC And APRA Corporate Plans 2026–27: What Regulated Entities Should Expect

APRA and ASIC have released their 2026–27 Corporate Plans, signalling more intensive supervision and enforcement, alongside targeted measures intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Their priorities span operational resilience, cyber security, artificial intelligence, consumer protection, insurance, superannuation, market integrity and digital assets. For regulated entities, the plans provide a practical roadmap of the areas most likely to attract supervisory attention, information requests and, where deficiencies are identified, enforcement action.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

A $2 Million “sting”: First Civil Penalty For Breach Of The Duty Of Utmost Good Faith

The Federal Court has imposed a $2 million civil penalty on Hollard Insurance Partners for breaching the duty of utmost good faith in its handling of a home insurance claim. This landmark decision marks the first time an insurer has faced civil penalties under section 13(2A) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, following sustained delays, inadequate expert engagement, and failures to properly assess storm damage that left policyholders in temporary accommodation for over three years.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Workplace Investigations And Decision Makers: What Employers Can Learn From Totino v Metro Trains

The Full Court of the Federal Court has clarified critical procedural requirements for employers managing medical incapacity terminations and defending general protections claims. This landmark decision addresses when workplace relations advisers must give evidence in proceedings and whether show cause letters constitute unlawful threats under the Fair Work Act.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Costs Orders Against Owners Corporations: When Maintenance Failures Meet Special Circumstances

An NCAT decision demonstrates how chronic maintenance failures by owners corporations can result in substantial costs orders, even without damages awards. The case clarifies when lot owners can be quarantined from contributing to legal costs and establishes clear responsibilities for identifying and delineating repair obligations in strata schemes.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell