Statutêre ontwikkeling in Australië sedert

Die modernisasie van die Australiese maatskappyereg het begin met die promulgasie van die Second Corporate Law Simplification Bill van 1996. Hierdie voorgestelde stuk wetgewing is op sy beurt deur die Company Law Review Bill van 1997 vervang. Die Company Law Review Bill van 1997 het gelei tot die verordening van die Company Law Review Act van 1998 wat wysigings aan die Corporations Law van 1989 aangebring het. In 2001 is die 1989 Corporations Law herroep en deur die Corporations Act van 2001 vervang. Artikels 124 en 125 van die Second Corporate Law Simplification Bill 1996195 _{het die wysiging van artikels 160-162 van die}

193 Burnett 1996:63. 194 (1990) 8 ACLC 980.

195 Dit verwys na die tweede wetsontwerp wat in Julie 1996 deur die Simplification Task Force uitgevaardig is.

Corporations Law van 1989 voorgestel.196 _{Hierdie wysigings is aanvaar en}

opgeneem in die Corporations Act van 2001

Artikel 125197 _{het voorgestel dat artikels 162(2)-(8) van die Corporation Law afgeskaf} moes word. Dit sou die effek hê dat enige handeling wat in konflik met die maatskappy se grondwet198 _{was, nie meer strydig met die Corporation Law sou wees} nie. Indien daar dus in stryd met die doelstellings van die maatskappy opgetree sou word, sou dit bloot tot optrede in stryd met die maatskappy se grondwet lei en sou die interne gevolge uitgestip in artikel 162(7) nie meer toepassing gevind het nie. Daar moet met Woodward199 _{saamgestem word dat alhoewel hierdie wysigings die} verwarring met betrekking tot oortredings van maatskappye se doelstellings in die Australiese maatskappyereg tot ’n groot mate sou verwyder, regsekerheid hier teen ’n hoë prys bekom sou word. Die verwydering van artikel 162(7) sou tot gevolg hê dat lede van een van hul magtigste wapens om volmagoorskrydings van verteenwoordigers of beamptes van ’n maatskappy aan te veg, ontneem sou word. Dit sou veral wesenlike gevolge vir sekere maatskappye hê wat ywerig gebruik maak van die beperking van hul doelstellings.200

Dit is interessant om daarop te let dat die wysigings voorgestel in artikels 124-127 nie die doelstellingklousules van ’n maatskappy sou afskaf nie, aangesien artikels 124 en 125 steeds voorsiening sou maak vir hierdie doelstellingsklousules. Artikel 1414 van die wetsontwerp het verder bepaal dat enige maatskappy wat nie aktiewe stappe geneem het om sy doelstellingsklousules af te skaf nie, steeds oor hierdie doelstellingsklousules sou beskik indien die wetsontwerp aanvaar sou word. Sekere

196 Sien http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol. Toegang op 04 Oktober 2006. 197 Artikel 125 lees soos volg:

(1) If a company has a constitution, it may contain an express restriction on, or prohibition of, the company’s exercise of any of it’s powers. The exercise of a power by the company is not invalid merely because it is contrary to an express restriction or prohibition in the company’s constitution.

(2) If a company has a constitution, it may set out the company’s objects. An act of the company is not invalid merely because it is contrary to or beyond any objects in the company’s constitution.

198 Daar word alreeds in artikel 162(1) na die maatskappy se grondwet verwys. Indien hierdie wetsontwerp aanvaar word, sal dit tot gevolg hê dat ’n maatskappy nie meer ’n “memorandum of association” sal hê nie, maar bloot ’n grondwet.

199 1997:162.

200 Maatskappye wat in hierdie kategorie val sou die volgende wees: (a) Organisasies wat sonder winsbejag bedryf word, bv. organisasies ingelyf ingevolge artikel 112 van die Corporation Law, sowel as organisasies ingelyf ingevolge artikel 31A van die

Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Vic). (b) “Joint venture” Maatskappye. (c) “No

liability” Maatskappye, wat gedefinieer word as: “Companies whose memoranda contain a provision stating the objects of the company and whose sole objects are mining purposes.” (d) Verskeie professionele praktyke byvoorbeeld regspraktyke ingelyf in terme van artikel 293(2) van die Legal Practice Act 1995 (Vic).

maatskappye was ook steeds in terme van die wetsontwerp verplig om van beperkings van hul doelstellings gebruik te maak.201 _{Artikels 124-127 van die Second} Corporate Law Simplification Bill 1996 is sonder wysiging as artikels 124,202 _125,203 126204 _{en 127}205 _{van die Corporations Act van 2001 oorgeneem. Al bogenoemde}

201 Byvoorbeld maatskappye sonder winsbejag sowel as ‘legal practice companies’. 202 Artikel 124 lees soos volg:

(1) A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside this jurisdiction. A company also has all the powers of a body corporate, including the power to:

(a) issue and cancel shares in the company;

(b) issue debentures (despite any rule of law or equity to the contrary, this power includes a power to issue debentures that are irredeemable, redeemable only if a contingency, however remote, occurs, or redeemable only at the end of a period, however long);

(c) grant options over unissued shares in the company;

(d) distribute any of the company’s property among the members, in kind or otherwise;

(e) give security by charging uncalled capital;

(f) grant a floating charge over the company’s property;

(g) arrange for the company to be registered or recognised as a body corporate in any place outside this jurisdiction;

(h) do anything that it is authorised to do by any other law (including a law of a foreign country).

A company limited by guarantee does not have the power to issue shares.

Note: For a company’s power to issue bonus, partly-paid, preference and redeemable preference shares, see section 254A.

(2) A company’s legal capacity to do something is not affected by the fact that the company’s interests are not, or would not be, served by doing it.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, this section does not:

(a) authorise a company to do an act that is prohibited by a law of a State or Territory; or

(b) give a company a right that a law of a State or Territory denies to the company.

203 (1) If a company has a constitution, it may contain an express restriction on, or a prohibition of, the company’s exercise of any of its powers. The exercise of a power by the company is not invalid merely because it is contrary to an express restriction or prohibition in the company’s constitution.

(2) If a company has a constitution, it may set out the company’s objects. An act of the company is not invalid merely because it is contrary to or beyond any objects in the company’s constitution.

204 (1) A company’s power to make, vary, ratify or discharge a contract may be exercised by an individual acting with the company’s express or implied authority and on behalf of the company. The power may be exercised without using a common seal.

(2) This section does not affect the operation of a law that requires a particular procedure to be complied with in relation to the contract.

205 (1) A company may execute a document without using a common seal if the document is signed by:

(a) 2 directors of the company; or

(b) a director and a company secretary of the company; or

(c) for a proprietary company that has a sole director who is also the sole company secretary – that director.

Note: If a company executes a document in this way, people will be able to rely on the assumptions in subsection 129(5) for dealings in relation to the company.

(2) A company with a common seal may execute a document if the seal is fixed to the document and the fixing of the seal is witnessed by:

kritiek is dus ook op artikels 124-127 van die Corporations Act van 2001 van toepassing.

Dit is duidelik dat daar in Australië gepoog is om finaal van die ultra vires-spook ontslae te raak deur middel van die Corporations Act van 2001.

Daar kan egter ’n baie belangrike les uit die Australiese ervaring geleer word, en dit is dat die ultra vires-leerstuk inderdaad soos Shapira206 _{beweer die “Lazarus” van die} maatskappyereg is. Indien daar dus verkies word om die leerstuk tot niet te maak, sal dit aggresief, maar met groot omsigtigheid gedoen moet word.

9. DIE WET OP BESLOTE KORPORASIES 69 VAN 1984: ’N MOONTLIKE