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

No Appor­tion­ment for Sec­tion 37 DBP Act Claims even where the alleged con­cur­rent wrong­do­er is not a sub­con­trac­tor of the builder:

Kapi­la v Mon­u­ment Build­ing Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1306 con­firms that builders and nom­i­nat­ed super­vi­sors can be held ful­ly liable…

Tem­po­rary Dis­con­for­mi­ty in Build­ing Defects: Myth, Not Law

The ​“tem­po­rary dis­con­for­mi­ty” argu­ment in con­struc­tion dis­putes sug­gests that defec­tive work iden­ti­fied before prac­ti­cal com­ple­tion is not a breach while the…

The impor­tance of a Request for Tender

Issu­ing a request for ten­der (RFT) is more than just secur­ing the best or low­est price. An RFT is your oppor­tu­ni­ty to man­age…

In the News

Michael Byrnes appeared on the Game Chang­ers Radio pod­cast host­ed by Craig Bruce and Irene Hulme on 24 April 2026 to dis­cuss the Fed­er­al Court case man­age­ment hear­ing in the sep­a­rate legal pro­ceed­ings com­menced by Kyle Sandi­lands and Jack­ie ​‘O’ Henderson

Michael Byrnes appeared on the Game Chang­ers Radio pod­cast host­ed by Craig Bruce and Irene Hulme on 24 April 202…

2026 Mer­i­tas Women’s Lead­er­ship Award, Return­er of the Year | Sarah Heuvel

Sarah Heuv­el, a Part­ner in our Prop­er­ty & Com­mer­cial team, has been recog­nised with a Mer­i­tas Women’s Lead­er­ship Award for her con­tri­bu­tion to…

Michael Byrnes appeared on the Game Chang­ers Radio pod­cast host­ed by Craig Bruce and Irene Hulme on 22 April 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the legal pro­ceed­ings com­menced by Kyle Sandi­lands against ARN

Michael Byrnes appeared on the Game Chang­ers Radio pod­cast host­ed by Craig Bruce and Irene Hulme on 22 April 202…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information