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

The Paper­cut Deci­sion and the Cur­rent Posi­tion on WFH

The FWC’s John­son v Paper­Cut Soft­ware deci­sion has renewed debate about the lim­its of work­ing from home rights. While some have…

Valen­tine’s Day in the Work­place (2026 Edition)

Valentine’s Day may appear harm­less, but in work­places it can cre­ate legal and cul­tur­al risks. Even well‑meant roman­tic ges­tures can…

Aus­tralia Day Sub­sti­tu­tion: The Legal Issues (2026 Edition)

As more major employ­ers allow staff to work on Aus­tralia Day and take the pub­lic hol­i­day lat­er, impor­tant legal ques­tions…

In the News

Give To Gain’ Inter­na­tion­al Wom­en’s Day 2026

When peo­ple, organ­i­sa­tions, and com­mu­ni­ties give gen­er­ous­ly, oppor­tu­ni­ties for women grow. Giv­ing isn’t sub­trac­tion, it’s inten­tion­al mul­ti­pli­ca­tion. Because when women…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Antho­ny Albanese’s moves to sack Pauline Hanson’s One Nation staffers comes under legal threat”, pub­lished in the Aus­tralian on 28 Feb­ru­ary 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Antho­ny Albanese’s moves to sack Pauline Hanson’s One Nation staffers comes under legal…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with James Willis on 2GB, 3AW, 4BC and 6PR on 24 Feb­ru­ary 2026 to dis­cuss the pro­pos­al to dis­cuss the impact of AI on claims before the Fair Work Commission

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with James Willis on 2GB, 3AW, 4BC and 6PR on 24 Feb­ru­ary 2026 to…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information