In Brief

Changes to the way most cor­po­rate insol­ven­cy notices have to be pub­lished came into effect on 1 July 2012. The Supreme Court of New South Wales has pro­vid­ed some guid­ance about how par­ties can avoid the cost of hav­ing to pub­lish notice of any appli­ca­tion to wind up a com­pa­ny on both the new ASIC web­site and in the print media


Changes requir­ing most cor­po­rate insol­ven­cy notices to be pub­lished on a new web­site run by the Aus­tralian Secu­ri­ties and Invest­ments Com­mis­sion (ASIC) came into effect on 1 July 2012.

Details of the changes are dis­cussed in our recent arti­cle.

As dis­cussed in our pre­vi­ous arti­cle, the intro­duc­tion of the new web­site pub­li­ca­tion require­ments has not for­mal­ly altered the require­ment under Fed­er­al Court and Supreme Court Rules, requir­ing print media pub­li­ca­tion of notices of wind­ing up appli­ca­tions. This rais­es the issue of dupli­ca­tion of costs for pub­li­ca­tion of wind­ing up notices as they would need to be pub­lished both on the web­site in return for pay­ment of a fee and in the print media.

To address this issue, the Reg­istry of the Supreme Court of New South Wales has indi­cat­ed that, sub­ject to any future deter­mi­na­tion of the issue by the Court, notice of a wind­ing up appli­ca­tion does not need to be pub­lished in a dai­ly news­pa­per, pro­vid­ed that any wind­ing up appli­ca­tion filed with the Supreme Court is sup­port­ed by an affi­davit that proves that notice of the appli­ca­tion has been pub­lished on the ASIC web­site and requests that the require­ments of Rule 5.6 of the Supreme Court (Cor­po­ra­tions) Rules 1999 (NSW) be dis­pensed with.

The issue is like­ly to be clar­i­fied fur­ther in due course through deter­mi­na­tion by the Court and leg­isla­tive amend­ments to the Fed­er­al Court and Supreme Court Rules.

If you would like fur­ther infor­ma­tion or have any spe­cif­ic ques­tions about the changes, please con­tact us.

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

The legal­i­ty of the Mar­ried at First Sight dis­missals”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 17 April 2026, Michael Byrnes is quoted.

Employ­ment issues sur­faced in this year’s sea­son of real­i­ty TV show Mar­ried at First Sight (MAFS), with rumours emerg­ing that…

Legal Essen­tials for Off Site Con­struc­tion | UNSW Sydney

A two-day con­struc­tion law short course equip­ping con­struc­tion and legal pro­fes­sion­als with the pro­cure­ment, reg­u­la­to­ry and dis­pute exper­tise required to…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, We asked a lawyer to unpack Jack­ie O’s $82m case, and where it could land for ARN and Kyle”, pub­lished in Medi­aweek on 9 April 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“We asked a lawyer to unpack Jack­ie O’s $82m case, and where it could…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information