The Court held that s 1322(4)(a) of the Corporations Act can be used to validate an administrator's appointment even where the court cannot make a positive finding about whether the underlying corporate resolution (here, removal of a director under s 249B) was validly made, because the power extends to 'any' contravention including the possibility of one. Following Weinstock v Beck, the failure to pass a resolution in conformity with s 249B or a company's constitution is properly characterised as a 'contravention' for s 1322(4)(a) purposes, even though those provisions are permissive rather than proscriptive. The Court also confirmed that once relief is granted under s 1322(4)(a), orders under s 447C and s 447A are unnecessary, and that the validation of the administrator's appointment does not validate the underlying removal of the director, preserving that question for separate proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.