In brief — Restrict­ed access aimed at unso­licit­ed share offers

The gov­ern­ment recent­ly brought into force new laws reg­u­lat­ing access to share reg­is­ters. Although aimed pri­mar­i­ly at unso­licit­ed share offers, the Cor­po­ra­tions Amend­ment (No 1) Act 2010 restricts access to reg­is­ters for a far wider range of users.


How the Act works 

Pre­vi­ous­ly any per­son could access infor­ma­tion from a share reg­is­ter, pro­vid­ed they paid the nec­es­sary fee. The only legal lim­i­ta­tion was that they could not sub­se­quent­ly use the infor­ma­tion for a pur­pose unre­lat­ed to the shareholding.

Under the new Act, a per­son who applies to access the reg­is­ter will have to dis­close to the com­pa­ny the pur­pose for which they intend to use the infor­ma­tion. If that is a ​“pre­scribed pur­pose”, the com­pa­ny will have the right to refuse access.

What is a pre­scribed purpose? 

The Cor­po­ra­tions Amend­ment Reg­u­la­tions 2010 (No. 10) define a pre­scribed pur­pose as:

  • Spe­cif­ic groups in the com­mu­ni­ty (such as char­i­ties) solic­it­ing dona­tions from shareholders
  • Bro­kers solic­it­ing clients 
  • Obtain­ing infor­ma­tion about the per­son­al wealth of clients
  • Mak­ing off-mar­ket offers to pur­chase secu­ri­ties (oth­er than for a takeover of an unlist­ed company)
Prob­lem­at­ic con­se­quences of the new laws

The new rules tip the bal­ance in favour of com­pa­nies. In prac­tice, com­pa­nies should be enti­tled to block approach­es by share raiders like David Tweed. How­ev­er, it may also allow com­pa­nies to block inves­ti­ga­tions by finan­cial jour­nal­ists, lead­ing to con­cerns this may give com­pa­nies a con­ve­nient means of obstruct­ing legit­i­mate media inquiries. 

For more infor­ma­tion on this sub­ject, please see Crack­down aimed at David Tweed could have unex­pect­ed con­se­quences and Pub­lic access to com­pa­ny reg­is­ters — the prop­er pur­pose test.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Employ­ers Ban­ning AI Smart Glass­es from the Workplace

Can employ­ers ban AI smart glass­es at work? As wear­able AI tech­nol­o­gy grows, busi­ness­es are nav­i­gat­ing pri­va­cy, cyber­se­cu­ri­ty, work­place sur­veil­lance…

Land­lords Beware: New Tobac­co Laws Could Mean Heavy Fines and Even Gaol Time

How Do New Tobac­co Laws Affect Land­lords in NSW?This year the NSW State Gov­ern­ment is crack­ing down on the sale of…

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When there is an emergency

When is entry into a lot with­out the lot own­er’s con­sent per­mit­ted to car­ry out repair work to com­mon prop­er­ty? When…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Good HR gone bad – who is respon­si­ble when HR are in hot water?”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 30 Octo­ber 2026

Who is legal­ly respon­si­ble for work­place dis­putes, mis­con­duct and employ­ment law breaches?Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Good HR gone…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Break­fast with Tim Web­ster on 2SM on 22 Octo­ber 2026 to dis­cuss the use of smart glass­es in the work­place (from 1:24:00 to 1:28:30)

Can employ­ers ban AI smart glass­es in the work­place? As wear­able AI tech­nol­o­gy gains trac­tion, organ­i­sa­tions must bal­ance inno­va­tion with…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Nights with John Stan­ley on 2GB and 4BC on 19 Octo­ber 2026 to dis­cuss the use of smart glass­es in the work­place (from 1:06:35 to 1:10:10)

Can employ­ers ban AI smart glass­es at work? As wear­able AI tech­nol­o­gy grows, busi­ness­es are nav­i­gat­ing pri­va­cy, cyber­se­cu­ri­ty, work­place sur­veil­lance…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information