Section 733 — Corporations Act 2001: General defences for all disclosure documents
Text of the provision Official document
Reasonable reliance on information given by someone else—statements and omissions (1) A person does not commit an offence against subsection 728(3),
and is not liable under section 729 for a contravention against subsection 728(1), because of a misleading or deceptive statement in, or an omission from, a disclosure document if the person proves that they placed reasonable reliance on information given to them by: (a) if the person is a body—someone other than a director, employee or agent of the body; or (b) if the person is an individual—someone other than an employee or agent of the individual. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is not the agent of a body or individual merely because they perform a particular professional or advisory function for the body or individual. Withdrawal of consent—statements and omissions (3) A person who is named in a disclosure document as: (a) being a proposed director or underwriter; or (b) making a statement included in the document; or (c) making a statement on the basis of which a statement is included in the document; does not commit an offence against subsection 728(3),
and is not liable under section 729 for a contravention against subsection 728(1), because of a misleading or deceptive statement in, or an omission from, a disclosure document if the person proves that they publicly withdrew their consent to being named in the document in that way. Unawareness of new matter (4) A person does not commit an offence against subsection 728(3),
and is not liable under section 729 for a contravention of subsection 728(1), because of a new circumstance that has arisen since the disclosure document was lodged if the person proves that they were not aware of the matter.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →