RE SUNSHINE METALS LIMITED [2025] WASC 494 (24 November 2025)

1. The plaintiff sought the following relief in its application:[1]

1. Pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), in respect of the 3,972,584 ordinary fully paid shares in the Plaintiff, which were issued on 7 October 2025 (Shares) the period of five business days referred to in s 708A(6)(a) of the Corporations Act be extended to 18 November 2025. 2. Pursuant to s 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act, it is declared that the notice under s 708A(5)(e) of the Corporations Act given to the Australian Securities Exchange Limited (ASX) on 18 November 2025 in respect of the Shares be deemed to take effect as if it had been given to the ASX on the date of issue of the Shares. 3. Pursuant to s 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act, it is declared that any offer for sale or sale of the Shares during the period after their issue to the date of these orders is not invalid by reason of:

(a) the failure of the Plaintiff to issue a notice under section 708A(5)(e) of the Corporations Act or to issue a prospectus under section 708A(11) of the Corporations Act to exempt the sellers from the obligation of disclosure under the Corporations Act; and
>
> (b) the sellers' consequent failure to comply with sections 707(3) and 727(1) of the Corporations Act.

1. A sealed copy of these orders is to be served on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) as soon as reasonably practicable. 2. A copy of these orders is to be given to each person to whom the Shares were issued and as soon as reasonably practicable the Plaintiff is to publish an announcement to ASX in which a copy of these orders is included. 3. The Plaintiff shall publish a copy of these orders on its website as soon as reasonably practicable. 4. For a period of 28 days from the publication of the ASX announcement in accordance with order 5, any person who claims to have suffered substantial injustice or is likely to suffer substantial injustice by the making of any or all of these orders has liberty to apply to vary or to discharge them. 5. There be no order as to costs.
2. The application is supported by three affidavits. The affidavits provide the court with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the share issues made by the plaintiff, the failure to recognise the disclosure obligations, how the failure became apparent to the company, and the process undertaken to investigate the issue and initiate this application.
3. The affidavits are:

(a) the affidavit of Mr Shaun Menezes, the plaintiff's company secretary, sworn on 18 November 2025;

(b) the affidavit of Mr Damien Leslie Keys, the managing director of the plaintiff, sworn on 19 November 2025; and

(c) the affidavit of Mr Toby Albert Hicks, a partner of the law firm which represents the plaintiff, sworn on 20 November 2025.

1. When securities are issued or sold, pt 6D.2 of the Act sets out whether disclosure is required to investors and, if so, what form of disclosure is required. The relevant legislative regime was summarised by Banks-Smith J in Re iCandy Interactive Limited.[2]
2. Where securities are issued, s 706 provides that disclosure to investors is required, unless s 708 or s 708AA say otherwise.
3. Where securities are sold, s 707 sets out when disclosure to investors is required. Section 707 provides that an offer of securities for sale (in the 12 months following their issue) requires disclosure if the securities were issued without disclosure and either:

(a) the company that issued the securities did so for the purpose that they be further disposed of; or

(b) the person acquiring the securities did so for the purpose of further disposing of them.

1. Section 707 is directed to and sets out anti-avoidance provisions. The purpose of the provision is to prevent the policy of ch 6D being circumvented by the issue of securities to a party to whom disclosure is not required (under s 708 or s 708AA) and that party then offering those securities for sale to investors without disclosure: Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd.[3]
2. There are various exemptions in the Act to the disclosure requirements in s 707, found in s 708, s 708AA or s 708A. Section 708A creates three exemptions from the disclosure requirements, which are referred to in the legislation as 'case 1', 'case 2' and 'case 3' (and which are described in s 708A(5), s 708A(11) and s 708A(12) respectively).
3. The exemption commonly relied upon by listed companies is found in s 708A(5). This provision relevantly states that disclosure in respect of a sale offer of securities (as those terms are defined) is not required if:

(a) the criteria set out in ss 708A(5)(a) to (d) are met; and

(b) under s 708A(5)(e)(i) the body gives to the ASX (which is the relevant market operator) a cleansing notice that complies with s 708A(6) before the sale offer is made which includes the requirement to give the notice within five business days after the day on which the relevant securities were issued by the body.

1. A further relevant exemption is found in s 708A(11), referred to as the cleansing prospectus or concurrent prospectus exemption.
2. The broad policy underlying s 708A is that no further disclosure will be required where investors have the benefit of information comparable to or otherwise available in a prospectus.[4] As to the cleansing prospectus exemption in s 708A(11), this provision recognises that investors may receive relevant information through a prospectus, although not issued pursuant to the specific placement, but that nonetheless relate to the same class of securities as the placement.[5]
3. In accordance with the statutory regime, a cleansing notice or cleansing prospectus can be used in situations where the original issue of securities did not require disclosure, but an on-sale of those securities within 12 months does require disclosure. The effect of the cleansing notice or cleansing prospectus is to 'cleanse' any subsequent sales of securities by shareholders within 12 months of issue.

1. The power of the court to make orders avoiding the effects of irregularities, extending time and relieving from civil liability is set out in s 1322. The plaintiff relies on the power in s 1322(4)(a) and (4)(d), in seeking its relief. It is uncontentious that the plaintiff is an 'interested person' and has standing to bring the application.
2. The principles applicable to the operation and scope of s 1322(4) need not be stated in full for the purposes of this application. It is sufficient to recite the following summary:[6]

(a) the prescriptive requirements of the wording in s 1322(4) and the preconditions in s 1322(6) need to be satisfied;

(b) the court retains a discretion under s 1322(4) as to whether it makes the orders sought;

(c) the broad powers reflect a legislative policy that the law should not inflict unnecessary liability or inconvenience or invalidate transactions because of non-compliance with its requirements where such non-compliance is the product of honest error or inadvertence and where the court can avoid its effects without prejudice to third parties or to the public interest in compliance with the law;

(d) limitations to the broad powers in s 1322 will not be readily implied, given the provision is remedial in character and should be applied broadly;

(e) the court can make orders under s 1322(4)(d) on conditions and also make such consequential and ancillary orders as it thinks fit; and

(f) an order can be made under s 1322(4)(d) notwithstanding that the contravention or failure concerned resulted in the commission of an offence.

1. One precondition to an order under s 1322(4)(a) is that the person concerned in or a party to the contravention acted honestly. In determining whether a person has acted honestly, the court looks to an absence of evidence of dishonesty. The concept of acting honestly can embrace:

(a) an inadvertence or failure to turn one's mind to the relevant issue;

(b) an active, but incorrect, consideration of a legal issue as well as failure to consider the issue at all; and

(c) the failure to understand or appreciate the significance of noncompliance.[7]

1. Prior to making an order under s 1322(4)(a) or s 1322(4)(d), the court must be satisfied that no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person: s 1322(6)(c). In essence, the question whether the making of the orders sought will cause any person substantial injustice directs attention to the interests of (at least) the creditors and shareholders of the company: DAC Finance (NSW/Qld) Pty Ltd and other companies.[8]
2. The court retains a residual discretion even if the preconditions to s 1322(4) are satisfied: Re Wesfarmers Ltd; Ex parte Wesfarmers Ltd (No 2).[9] Satisfaction of the conditions in s 1322(6)(a) and s 1322(6)(c) are therefore necessary but not sufficient to ensure a favourable exercise of the discretion in s 1322(4)(a) and (d).

1. The relevant facts may be briefly stated.
2. The plaintiff is a listed mineral exploration company which has a focus on discovery and exploration of gold resources, particularly at the Ravenswood Consolidated Project in Queensland. The plaintiff has some 2,854 separate shareholders.
3. On 7 October 2025, the plaintiff caused to be issued a tranche of fully paid ordinary shares, which followed the exercise of options issued as free attaching options to participants of a private placement on 21 May 2025. On 27 March 2025, the plaintiff had earlier announced the private placement, being a placement to sophisticated and professional investors. The placement involved the issue of 500,000,000 ordinary shares, with participants entitled to one free attaching option for every three placement shares.
4. The placement shares were issues in two tranches, on 3 April 2025 and then on 21 May 2025, in respect of 396,666,667 shares and 103,333,333 shares respectively.
5. As to the first tranche, on 3 April 2025, the plaintiff issued a cleansing notice in respect of 396,666,667 shares and, having issued those shares, the company secretary completed the Appendix 2A in respect of the issue of this portion of the placement shares.
6. As to the second tranche, those shares were subject to shareholder approval. On 21 May 2025, the plaintiff issued the further 103,333,333 shares following a meeting of the plaintiff's shareholders on the same date. The company secretary issued an Appendix 2A and a cleansing notice on that date as well.
7. So far, so good.
8. Then, on 7 October 2025, the plaintiff issued 3,972,584 shares as a result of three shareholders exercising the corresponding number of options. The company secretary issued an Appendix 2A on that date, but the plaintiff failed to issue a cleansing notice within 5 days of the issue of the shares.
9. The company secretary has deposed that he proceeded on the mistaken understanding that the cleansing notice issued in respect of the placement shares satisfied any disclosure requirements in respect of the free attaching placement options and the shares issued upon exercise of those options. I accept that explanation.
10. The company secretary became aware of the issue during a conversation with the plaintiff's solicitors some 10 days later, on 17 October 2025. Whilst speaking with those solicitors, it became apparent that the plaintiff had not complied with its disclosure obligations by reason of its failure to lodge a notice under s 708A(5) of the Act in respect of the shares issued on 7 October 2025.
11. Following this conversation, the plaintiff implemented a process to review its share register to determine whether any of the shares had been on-sold, and then appreciated that all of the shares had been on-sold. The plaintiff also reviewed its previous issues of securities to ensure there were no further instances of non-compliance. The process undertaken by the company and its solicitors, at this point, may be summarised as follows:

(a) On 17 October 2025, the company secretary instructed the company's solicitors to prepare the necessary application under s 1322 of the Act to rectify the disclosure issue.

(b) On 27 October 2025, the company secretary contacted the company's solicitors to understand how they were progressing with the application. He was informed there was a delay in commencing the preparation of the documents

(c) On 29 October 2025, the plaintiff's solicitors sent a list of queries to the plaintiff including to enquire whether the shares had been on-sold since their issue. That request was followed up by the solicitors on 3 November 2025, and consideration was given to whether any application would be required if the shares had not yet been on-sold.

(d) On 10 November 2025, the plaintiff's solicitors requested that a deeper review be undertaken by the company secretary of the prior share issues made by the company. Some consideration appears to have been given in this regard as to whether any additional cleansing notices may have been required.

(e) On 17 November 2025, the company secretary confirmed to the plaintiff's solicitors that the review of previous share issues in the last two years revealed no additional instances of non-compliance.

1. On 17 November 2025, following a further exercise of options, the plaintiff caused to be issued a further tranche of shares, being 9,111,111 shares. On that date, the plaintiff issued a cleansing notice for those shares.
2. The company secretary has deposed that he is not aware of any other failure to issue a cleansing notice or to effectively cleanse an issue of securities by the company.
3. On 18 November 2025, the plaintiff procured a trading halt of the plaintiff's securities, and a voluntary suspension upon expiration of the trading halt. The plaintiff also issued an announcement giving notice to the ASX under s 708A(5)(e) of the Act in relation to the 3,972,584 shares to which I have referred above. That notice relevantly stated:[10]

Sunshine Metals Limited ... provides this notice to ASX under section 708A(5)(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("Corporations Act") in relation to the issue of 3,972,584 fully paid ordinary shares in the capital of the Company ("Shares") following the exercise of 3,972,584 options to acquire Shares without disclosure under Part 6D.2 of the Corporations Act.

The Act restricts the on-sale of securities issued without disclosure under Chapter 6D of the Act, unless the sale is exempt under section 708 or 708A. By the Company giving this notice, sale of the Shares noted above will fall within the exemption in section 708A(5)(e) of the Act, subject to the Company being granted orders to that effect by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which will be sought by the Company as soon as possible.

The Company hereby notifies ASX under paragraph 708A(5)(e) of the Act that:

(a) the Company issued the Shares without disclosure under Part 6D.2 of the Act;

(b) this notice is given under section 705A(5)(e) of the Act;

(c) as at 7 October 2025, and when the Shares were issued, and as at the date of this notice the Company has complied with the provisions of Chapter 2M of the Act as they apply to the Company and sections 674 and 674A of the Act; and

(d) as at 7 October 2025, and when the Shares were issued, and as at the date of this notice, there is no information:

(i) that has been excluded from a continuous disclosure notice in accordance with the ASX Listing Rules; and

(ii) that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require for the purpose of making an informed assessment of:

(A) the assets and liabilities, financial position and performance, profits and losses and prospects of the Company; or

(B) the rights and liabilities attaching to the Shares.

1. It is necessary to say something about the delay on the plaintiff's part in bringing the application.
2. On 17 October 2025, the plaintiff's company secretary became aware of the disclosure issue. That emerged during a conversation with the plaintiff's solicitors, while seeking legal advice about the issue of shares upon the conversion of options. The application for relief was not filed until 18 November 2025. The request to the ASX for a trading halt was also made on that date.
3. The plaintiff's delay in seeking a trading halt was raised by ASIC in its communications with the plaintiff's solicitors. The further issue of shares by the company on 17 November 2025, the day before the request for a trading halt, was also raised by ASIC. A response to these queries was given by the plaintiff's solicitors on 19 November 2025.[11] The plaintiff's solicitors response to ASIC explained the investigations undertaken by the plaintiff. The response included the following statements:[12]

The circumstances surrounding Sunshine Metals are not unique and relate to a misunderstanding of the requirements around issuing cleansing notices for the issue of shares where the underlying option was not issued under a prospectus. At all relevant times, the Company was capable of issuing a cleansing notice, but did not realise its requirement to do so.

Following the identification of the issue, the Company has undertaken a search to determine whether there were any other issues and also getting the Board across the issue. Having been made aware of the need to issue cleansing notices, the Company has been issuing cleansing notice for all future issues of shares since 17 October 2025, ensuring that the market is fully informed.

On the basis that at no time was the market in danger of not trading on a fully informed basis, and that the Company continued to issue cleansing notices correctly after it identified the error the subject of the current Court Application, the Company's view was that a trading halt was not necessary, and that the costs of being in a trading halt (and likely suspension) while the investigation was ongoing were likely too high given the nature of the oversight.

ASX has been informed of the issue, but have previously advised that treatment of cleansing notice matters are not an ASX issue and therefore do not require notification to ASX. The trading halt request and cleansing notice issued identify the issue to the market and note the Company's current action to rectify that breach.

1. The representatives at ASIC did not specifically comment on the above response, but did request that the plaintiff serve the court papers for the application on ASIC prior to the hearing. Having been served with the papers, the regulator responded to the plaintiff in terms of its standard form letter (dated 20 November 2025), that it neither supported nor opposed the application and gave notice that it did not intend to appear at the hearing.[13]
2. From the court's perspective, delays in bringing applications for curative relief stemming from failures to comply with the regulatory disclosure obligations are matters of concern. The promptness of applications under s 1322 of the Act is a relevant factor to the exercise of the discretion to grant relief under that provision.[14]
3. It is the court's experience that such applications, where disclosure failures are concerned, are typically brought within a matter of days, not weeks.[15] These are applications of an urgent nature which must be brought promptly once the problem has reared its head. Concerns about delay and the adoption of a leisurely approach to dealing with failures to comply with statutory obligations is an issue on which I had cause to comment in Re Bellavista Resources Limited.[16] The issue of delay must, of course, be weighed in the balance with the other considerations which are relevant to curative relief applications. The promptness of the application is not the sole criterion.
4. The plaintiff recognised that there was a delay in filing the application. In its written submissions, the plaintiff candidly accepted that, on one view, the plaintiff had not acted with the expedition that one would expect from a company in its position.
5. Rather than seek to minimize the issue of delay, the plaintiff has frankly addressed the issue and fulsomely explained the process which was undertaken by the plaintiff and its solicitors following the revelation of the issue on 17 October 2025. I have detailed this explanation earlier in these reasons. The explanation provides evidence that the plaintiff company and its solicitors were addressing this disclosure issue over the four week period in question.
6. The delay, while obviously relevant to the application and the relief sought, is not such as to preclude the grant of that relief when examined in the context of the circumstances as a whole, which I have addressed below.

G. Disposition - extension order sought under s 708A(6)(a)

1. The first order sought by the plaintiff is pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) of the Act, to extend the time for the plaintiff to issue the notice under s 708A(5) and s 708A(6) of the Act, to 18 November 2025. That was the date on which the plaintiff issued the notice under the regime, which I have earlier extracted.
2. It is appropriate to address this order by applying the two stage test referred to by Vaughan J (as his Honour then was) in Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd.[17] That is, to first determine whether it is appropriate to make an order extending the relevant period and then to determine whether any substantial prejudice has been or is likely to be caused to any person by the making of the order.
3. On the material before the court, I consider it is appropriate to extend the time period in s 708A(6) of the Act. Counsel for the plaintiff identified a number of features of the case which support the extension, the force of which I accept. It is only necessary to emphasise the following matters.
4. First, the plaintiff self-identified the problem, with the assistance of its solicitors and then entered a voluntary trading halt. The plaintiff has taken a proactive response to the matter which tends to suggest that, apart from this inadvertent omission, it takes its disclosure obligations seriously.
5. Second, in the absence of an extension granted by this court, there are likely to be adverse consequences for the plaintiff and for its shareholders. Most significantly, unless orders are made by the court, the plaintiff's shares will remain suspended from trading. This would obviously deny the shareholders of the plaintiff the opportunity to trade their shares.
6. Third, the shareholders who have purchased shares in the plaintiff on market may have purchased some of the shares impacted by this non-disclosure. As the plaintiff has submitted, given that any such sales will have occurred without disclosure, this potentially means that these transactions are void or voidable creating title issues for these parties. That is an outcome to be avoided, if appropriate.
7. Fourth, there is no evidence that any investor has suffered any loss or has been prejudiced. Allied to this, the ancillary orders sought by the plaintiff provide for notice to be given to all persons affected and the ability for those persons to apply to raise any matters with the court.
8. I have earlier explained the delay associated with the filing of the application. Further, notwithstanding the delay, the following matters are also relevant when considering the exercise of the court's curative powers:

(a) the plaintiff has a demonstrated history of compliance with its disclosure obligations under pt 6D.2, including in respect of the placement subject to this proceeding (it being apparent that the plaintiff issued cleansing notices on each occasion shares were issued pursuant to the placement on 3 April 2025 and 21 May 2025);

(b) there is no reason to infer that the plaintiff or its officers acted dishonestly in any way relevant to the capital raising, the issue of securities or its disclosure obligations; and

(c) the application is made in the interests of shareholders to ensure that there is no doubt as to the validity of title of any securities traded in the relevant period and to lift the suspension of trading of those securities.

1. Finally, as to the preconditions to the exercise of the power under s 1322(4)(d) of the Act, I am satisfied no substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person for the purposes of s 1322(6)(c) of the Act. I accept the evidence of the company secretary in this regard, to the effect that he is not aware of any circumstance which suggests that substantial injustice has been or is likely to be caused to any person, and there is no evidence to the contrary, nor would I infer such injustice in the circumstances, particularly given the class of shareholders involved.

1. The plaintiff's counsel drew the court's attention to earlier decisions of this court in which deeming and validity orders such as those sought by the plaintiff have been made, in practically similar circumstances: Ex parte Imdex Ltd[18] and Ex parte Memphasys Limited.[19]
2. The orders sought by the plaintiff are appropriate. There is evidence before the court that the shares in question have been sold (and it cannot be discounted that the shares have been further on-sold). Further, the plaintiff has, prior to the hearing today, lodged the cleansing notice. Further still, a deeming order may be said to be a corollary of the extension of time order to which I have referred above and which I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.
3. There is a precondition to the making of an order under s 1322(4)(a) of the Act, which is found in the matters set out s 1322(6)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act. Those matters are disjunctive. It is sufficient for the purposes of this application to observe that the requirements in (ii) and (iii) are satisfied, for the reasons set out in the plaintiff's submissions at [47] to [50]. In particular, I am satisfied the plaintiff and the officers involved in the contravention acted honestly and it is just and equitable to make the order sought.

1. Although I am satisfied that the requirements of s 1322(4)(a) and (d) of the Act are satisfied, as explained above, it remains necessary to consider whether there are any other discretionary reasons to withhold relief. I am comfortably satisfied there are not.
2. I consider the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff's failure to comply with its disclosure obligations was inadvertent. The company secretary has deposed, and I accept, that he proceeded under the mistaken view that the cleansing notice issued in respect of the placement was sufficient to comply with the company's disclosure requirements. That was essentially the sole explanation for the issue which has emerged, and which the plaintiff has now sought to address through this application, albeit the application may have been filed more promptly.
3. Importantly, in my view, the managing director and company secretary of the plaintiff have also filed sworn statements to the effect that:[20]

...having reviewed the ASX announcements by the plaintiff on and around the date of the share issue and also having reviewed the plaintiff's internal documentation and correspondence around the time of the share issue, neither deponent is aware of any reason suggesting that there was excluded information at the date the shares were issued (the date on which the cleansing notices ought to have been issued) or that cleansing notices could not have been lodged by the plaintiff.

1. This evidence, as to the absence of any excluded information at the relevant time, is a material consideration in the context of applications such as the present.
2. Finally, I note the company secretary has deposed that steps have been taken by the company, and are being taken, to ensure shares are cleansed in the future. The company secretary has deposed that:

[51] With the assistance of the Plaintiff's external legal advisors, to ensure this issue does not arise again, I have prepared a written checklist setting out all administrative steps required in respect of any issue of Shares or other securities by the Plaintiff, which will be considered and signed by two officers of the Plaintiff each time an issue of securities is to be completed. Attached hereto and marked "SM-21" is the checklist that has been prepared for use in connection with issues of securities in the future.

[52] Further, if I have any doubts or queries concerning any requirement associated with the future issues and cleansing of securities, I will ensure that the Plaintiff seeks external legal advice to ensure that all disclosure requirements are complied with.

1. The preparation of the written checklist, and its production to the court on this application, has assisted the court to more readily conclude that the discretion to withhold relief should not be exercised. That said, as I indicated in Re Avenira Limited,[21] it is of some concern to be informed that a public listed company does not have a written procedure in place to ensure disclosure compliance.
2. In the event it may assist other entities with their disclosure obligations, I have attached to these reasons as Attachment A the checklist or protocol prepared by the plaintiff and its solicitors, which might be adapted by entities which are subject to the disclosure regime in pt 6D.2 of the Act.

1. For the foregoing reasons, I made the substantive orders sought by the plaintiff, being orders 1, 2 and 3 in the originating process, and the ancillary orders in orders 4 to 7 of the originating process.
2. Further, given the absence of any evidence that the persons involved or the plaintiff company failed to act honestly, and it being apparent that the delay in the filing of the application did not contribute material to the costs of the proceeding, I considered it appropriate there be no order as to costs.
3. I accordingly made the orders sought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's written protocol for issue of securities**

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] Plaintiff's minute of proposed orders dated 21 November 2025.

[2] Re iCandy Interactive Limited [2018] FCA 533 [6] - [13] (Banks-Smith J).

[3] Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd [2010] FCA 40 [27] (McKerracher J).

[4] Re Golden Gate Petroleum [36] (McKerracher J).

[5] Re Golden Gate Petroleum [27] (McKerracher J).

[6] Re Wave Capital Ltd [2003] FCA 969; (2003) 47 ACSR 418 [29] - [31] (French J, as his Honour then was); and Weinstock v Beck [2013] HCA 14; (2013) 251 CLR 396 [43], [53] and [64].

[7] Re iCandy Interactive Limited [54] - [104] (Banks-Smith J).

[8] DAC Finance (NSW/Qld) Pty Ltd and other companies [2020] NSWSC 182 [46] (Gleeson J).

[9] Re Wesfarmers Ltd; Ex parte Wesfarmers Ltd (No 2) [2018] WASC 357 [35] (Vaughan J).

[10] Affidavit of Mr Menezes, Attachment SM-19.

[11] Affidavit of Mr Menezes, Attachment TH-2, pgs 8 - 9.

[12] Affidavit of Mr Menezes, Attachment TH-2, pg 8.

[13] Affidavit of Mr Menezes, Attachment TH-1.

[14] Re G8 Communications Ltd [2016] FCA 297; (2016) 112 ACSR 22 [60] (Barker J).

[15] See, for example, Re Skin Elements Limited [2024] WASC 509 (Hill J); Re Macro Metals Ltd [2025] WASC 316 (Hill J).

[16] Re Bellavista Resources Limited [2023] WASC 40.

[17] Ex parte Jaxsta Ltd [2018] WASC 390.

[18] Ex parte Imdex Ltd [2020] WASC 298.

[19] Ex parte Memphasys Limited [2022] WASC 269.

[20] Affidavit of Mr Menezes [47] and affidavit of Mr Keys [20].

[21] Re Avenira Limited [2023] WASC 440.