hardies-lawyers

Structuring mining joint ventures and earn-in arrangements in Australia

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 03:29:37 GMT

A practical guide to joint ventures, staged earn-ins, and choosing the right structure for your project

Exploration and mining projects can demand significant capital long before they generate a return. They also rely on a mix of geological knowledge, technical capability, operational resources, and effective management. For junior explorers working with tighter budgets and lean teams, bringing another party into a project can provide access to resources and capabilities that would otherwise need to be developed or funded internally.

Joint ventures are commonly used across the Australian resources sector to establish how 2 or more parties will participate in a project. They can allow project costs and risks to be shared, while staged earn-in arrangements provide a way for an incoming participant to progressively earn an interest in the project through agreed expenditure or by achieving project milestones.

The structure chosen at the beginning matters. It determines how the parties contribute funds, make decisions, hold their interests, and respond when circumstances change.

For junior explorers considering a joint venture or earn-in arrangement, understanding these mechanics is an important starting point.

What is a joint venture in exploration and mining?

A joint venture is a commercial arrangement between 2 or more parties established to pursue a particular project. Each participant contributes according to the agreed terms and shares in the project according to its interest.

In the resources sector, joint ventures can be established during exploration or later in a project's development.

An exploration joint venture is generally focused on exploring and advancing a tenement. Funding exploration programmes, conducting drilling and technical work, maintaining tenure, and assessing the project's potential may all form part of the arrangement.

A mining joint venture becomes relevant as a project progresses towards development and production. The commercial arrangements can become considerably more complex at this stage as the participants deal with larger funding commitments, operations, infrastructure, product marketing, and off-take arrangements, as well as rehabilitation and mine closure obligations.

The agreement needs to account for the current stage of the project while providing a clear framework for what happens if exploration produces encouraging results and the parties decide to move towards commercial mining operations.

What are the benefits of a joint venture?

The reasons for establishing a joint venture will depend on the project and the participants. For junior resources companies, 3 areas are particularly relevant – cost contributions, allocation of risk, and access to complementary capabilities.

Sharing project costs

Exploration expenditure can accumulate well before the commercial potential of a project is known. Drilling, geological work, sampling, surveys, and other exploration activities all require funding, alongside the costs associated with maintaining the underlying tenements.

A joint venture allows those costs to be allocated between participants according to the terms of their agreement.

Once participants are contributing jointly, funding is commonly addressed through approved budgets and cash calls. The agreement should establish how much each participant is required to contribute, when payments are due, and what happens when a participant chooses not to meet a future funding commitment.

Dilution provisions are often used to address this situation. A participant that does not contribute its agreed share of expenditure may have its percentage interest in the project reduced according to the formula set out in the JV agreement.

For a junior explorer, these provisions deserve careful attention. Funding requirements can increase significantly as a project develops, so the consequences of future non-participation need to be understood from the outset.

Allocating project risk

Mining and exploration projects carry financial, technical, regulatory, environmental, and operational risks. A JV agreement can establish how responsibility for those risks is allocated between the participants.

The allocation will depend on the commercial arrangement. Liability and expenditure may be divided according to each participant's percentage interest, while specific obligations may sit with the participant appointed to operate or manage the project.

Some agreements also contain sole risk provisions. These can allow one participant to proceed with a particular activity at its own cost when another participant does not wish to take part, subject to the agreed consequences for the parties' respective interests or returns.

Clear allocation is especially important where participants have different levels of involvement in day-to-day operations.

Bringing different capabilities together

Capital is only one contribution a participant can make.

Joint venture parties may bring different technical, geological, operational, or managerial capabilities to a project. A participant may also have valuable knowledge of a particular geographical area, access to infrastructure, or resources needed to progress exploration and development.

The JV agreement should make the responsibilities of each participant clear. Where one party will contribute significant operational capability, for example, the agreement should address the scope of its role, how its performance is overseen, and how associated costs are treated.

How do staged earn-in arrangements work?

A staged earn-in, also commonly referred to as a farm-in, allows a party to earn an interest in a project by satisfying agreed expenditure commitments or milestones.

This structure is particularly relevant to exploration projects. An existing tenement holder may retain an interest in the project while another participant funds agreed exploration activities in return for progressively earning its own interest.

The interest does not necessarily transfer in full at the beginning. Instead, the arrangement can be divided into stages.

For example, the agreement may establish an initial expenditure commitment that must be completed before the incoming participant earns its first interest. The participant can then elect to move into a further stage, committing additional expenditure to earn a greater percentage.

The drafting in the JV agreement needs to make the pathway clear, including:

what expenditure qualifies towards the earn-in;
the minimum expenditure required at each stage;
the timeframe for satisfying each commitment;
any technical or project milestones;
when an interest is treated as having been earned;
who controls and operates the exploration programme;
the participant's right to continue or withdraw at each stage; and
what happens after the maximum interest has been earned.

The definition of qualifying expenditure can be particularly important. Exploration involves numerous costs, and the parties should know which expenses count towards an earn-in commitment and how those expenses will be verified.

Some arrangements may also include a free carry or sole funding period, under which one participant funds agreed project expenditure while another retains an interest without contributing during that period. Once the free carry period ends, the parties may begin contributing according to their respective interests or become subject to agreed dilution provisions.

After the earn-in has been completed, the relationship will generally continue under the joint venture arrangements agreed between the parties.

Unincorporated or incorporated joint venture?

One of the main structural decisions is whether the JV will be incorporated or unincorporated. The distinction between these 2 structures affects ownership, governance, liability, administration, and taxation.

Unincorporated joint ventures

An unincorporated JV does not create a separate company to conduct the venture. The participants hold their respective interests directly and continue to operate as separate entities, with their relationship governed primarily through the joint venture agreement.

Typically, one participant is appointed as the operator or manager responsible for day-to-day project activities. A management committee representing the participants provides oversight and makes decisions in accordance with the voting arrangements established in the agreement.

This structure is commonly used for Australian exploration projects and can accommodate staged earn-ins, changing participating interests, and withdrawal arrangements.

The agreement itself therefore carries considerable weight. It needs to establish how the project will function and how the parties' respective rights and responsibilities will be managed throughout the relationship.

Incorporated joint ventures

An incorporated JV uses a separate company as the vehicle for the project. The participants become shareholders in that company, and the company can hold project assets and enter contracts in its own name.

Governance generally occurs through a board of directors, with the participants' relationship further documented through a shareholders' agreement and the company's constitution.

An incorporated structure may be considered for later-stage or complex projects where financing, employees, operations, or other aspects of project development make a separate corporate vehicle more appropriate.

There is no universal structure for a resources JV. The appropriate approach depends on the stage and nature of the project, the parties' commercial objectives, funding requirements, intended operations, and tax position.

What should a joint venture agreement cover?

The JV agreement translates the parties' commercial deal into a framework that can operate throughout the life of the project. For an exploration JV, the agreement needs to deal with today's work programme whilst anticipating what could happen if the project advances.

Key provisions generally fall into several areas.

Funding and ownership provisions can cover initial interests, earn-in commitments, project expenditure, cash calls, free carries, dilution, and the consequences of failing to contribute.

Management and decision-making provisions should establish who acts as operator, the role and powers of the management committee, voting thresholds, and how programmes and budgets are approved. Matters requiring unanimous approval may also need to be identified.

Project obligations can address responsibility for maintaining tenements in good standing, conducting exploration activities, regulatory and environmental compliance, technical information, reporting, and project data.

The agreement should also deal with changes in the relationship. This can include transfers of interests, withdrawal, default, change of control, deadlock procedures, and termination.

For an exploration JV, another important question is what happens following a decision to mine. The parties may need to move into a mining joint venture arrangement dealing with the greater financial, operational, and regulatory commitments associated with project development and production.

Tax and regulatory considerations

Tax consequences can differ considerably between incorporated and unincorporated structures.

Depending on the arrangement, considerations may include the treatment of income and expenditure, project losses, GST, capital gains tax, duties, and distributions. Changes to participating interests through earn-ins or dilution can also have tax consequences.

Appropriate tax advice should therefore form part of the structuring process before the parties settle the commercial terms.

Listed entities also need to consider their obligations under the ASX Listing Rules . A material JV, farm-in, or earn-in transaction may trigger disclosure obligations, while public reporting of exploration results (including Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves) must be considered against the applicable ASX and JORC reporting requirements.

These obligations should form part of transaction planning, particularly for junior explorers operating with small management teams and without extensive in-house legal resources.

Building an agreement that can develop with the project

An exploration JV may begin with a relatively defined programme of work, but the relationship can change significantly if drilling results support further investment.

Participating interests may change through an earn-in. Funding commitments can increase, new approvals and technical work may be required, and a decision to mine can introduce an entirely different level of expenditure and operational responsibility.

The legal structure should provide a clear framework for each of these stages. This includes what happens during the earn-in, how the parties operate once it has been completed, and how the relationship will work if the project ultimately progresses towards commercial mining operations.

Set your joint venture up for what comes next

A joint venture can begin with an exploration programme and develop into a long-term commercial relationship involving significant capital, changing ownership interests and, ultimately, a producing mine. The terms agreed at the outset need to keep working as the project moves forward.

Hardies Lawyers works with junior explorers and mining companies across the Western Australian resources sector, providing practical legal advice and real-world solutions across the entire project life-cycle. From structuring a staged earn-in to negotiating the JV agreement, Hardies Lawyers can help establish clear terms around funding, decision-making, management, dilution, tenement interests, and exit rights.

Planning an exploration or mining joint venture? Book a consultation with Hardies Lawyers to put the right legal structure in place from the start.

Disclaimer : This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

Directors' duties in an AI world - a practical guide for Australian boards

Sat, 01 Aug 2026 01:36:02 GMT

Technology can support decisions, but directors still remain accountable

Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of everyday life for many. Companies are using AI to draft reports, analyse data, review contracts, and streamline administrative tasks. As the technology continues to evolve, it's easy to see why boards are exploring new ways to improve efficiency and support decision-making.

At Hardies Lawyers , we're seeing more directors ask the same question – if AI helps make a decision, who is responsible when something goes wrong?

The answer is simple. AI may be a valuable business tool, but it doesn't change a director's legal obligations. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) still requires directors to exercise independent judgement, act with care and diligence, and make decisions that are in the best interests of the company. As regulators continue to focus on the governance of AI, boards also need to consider broader obligations around privacy, risk management, and corporate governance.

AI is changing the way boards work

AI has the potential to improve efficiency across almost every area of a business.

Boards are already using AI to summarise lengthy reports, analyse operational data, review commercial documents, and assist with preparing meeting papers. For many businesses, particularly smaller listed companies with lean management teams, these tools can save valuable time and allow directors to focus on higher-value strategic decisions.

Used appropriately, AI can become another source of information that supports better decision-making. Like any other business tool, however, its outputs should be considered carefully rather than accepted without question.

The role of directors hasn't changed simply because technology has become more sophisticated.

Directors' duties still apply

One of the most important obligations for a director under the Corporations Act is the director's duty of care.

Section 180 requires directors to exercise their powers and perform their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in the same circumstances.

That obligation doesn't disappear because AI has been involved in the decision-making process.

If an AI platform prepares a report, analyses financial information, or recommends a particular course of action, directors still need to understand the information they're relying on. They should ask questions, consider the reliability of the output, and apply their own commercial judgement before making a decision.

Technology can assist the board, but it cannot replace the board.

As AI becomes more common across Australian businesses, maintaining strong oversight will become an increasingly important part of fulfilling directors' duties and responsibilities .

Accountability still sits with the board

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding AI is that responsibility somehow shifts to the technology.

It certainly doesn't.

If an AI-generated report contains incorrect information, if an AI tool contributes to a misleading ASX announcement , or if directors rely on inaccurate outputs without appropriate oversight, regulators are unlikely to accept that 'the AI made the mistake' as a defence.

A breach of directors' duties under the Corporations Act can expose directors and companies to significant legal and commercial consequences. Depending on the circumstances, this may include regulatory investigations, shareholder claims, reputational damage and, in some cases, personal liability.

Understanding the potential remedies for breach of directors' duties in Australia is important, but prevention is always the better approach. Boards should establish appropriate governance processes before AI becomes embedded in day-to-day decision-making.

Privacy can't be overlooked

AI also raises important questions under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Many AI platforms process information that may include employee details, shareholder information, customer records, or commercially sensitive material. Before uploading this information into an AI system, directors should understand how that data will be collected, stored, used, and protected.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has made it clear that existing privacy obligations continue to apply when organisations use AI. That includes making sure that personal information is handled appropriately, only used for authorised purposes, and protected against unauthorised access or disclosure.

Businesses introducing new AI tools should also consider whether a Privacy Impact Assessment is appropriate, particularly where personal information forms part of the system's inputs or outputs.

Governance expectations are evolving

Although Australia doesn't currently have legislation specifically regulating artificial intelligence, regulators have been clear that boards are expected to maintain effective oversight of emerging technologies.

For ASX-listed companies, this extends past legal compliance. The ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations encourage boards to establish appropriate risk management frameworks and oversee material business risks. As AI becomes more integrated into business operations, many organisations will need to consider how AI governance fits within those existing frameworks.

That doesn't necessarily mean creating layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.

It means understanding where AI is being used, identifying the associated risks, setting clear internal policies, and ensuring appropriate human oversight remains in place.

Good governance has always been about asking the right questions, and AI simply gives boards a new area to consider.

Questions every board should be asking

As AI becomes more common across Australian businesses, directors should regularly ask:

Do we understand where AI is being used across the business?
Have we established clear policies for the use of AI?
Are important decisions still subject to appropriate human oversight?
Have we considered our obligations under the Privacy Act?
Do our existing governance and risk management frameworks adequately address AI?

These conversations don't need to be complex, but they do need to happen.

Good governance still starts with people

Artificial intelligence will continue to reshape the way businesses operate, but it hasn't changed the legal responsibilities of company directors.

The Corporations Act still requires directors to exercise independent judgement and act with care and diligence. AI may support better decisions, but it cannot replace the experience, oversight, and accountability that sits around the board table.

For businesses embracing new technologies, the strongest governance frameworks will combine innovation with sensible risk management. That's what builds confidence with regulators, investors, and shareholders alike.

Talk to Hardies Lawyers

As AI becomes a bigger part of corporate decision-making, boards need practical advice that balances innovation with good governance.

At Hardies Lawyers , we help founders, senior executives, and boards navigate evolving governance challenges under Australian company law. From reviewing governance frameworks and board policies to advising on AI-related risk and compliance, we provide practical legal support tailored to the dynamic junior resources market.

If your board is exploring the use of AI or reviewing its governance framework, contact Hardies Lawyers to discuss how we can help your business remain compliant while embracing new opportunities.

Disclaimer : This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

What is corporate compliance? A practical guide for Australian companies

Wed, 01 Jul 2026 14:09:31 GMT

Good compliance gives boards confidence to move faster

Running a company comes with no shortage of responsibilities. Alongside growing the business, managing risk, and making commercial decisions, directors are also expected to meet a range of legal and governance obligations.

At Hardies Lawyers , we work closely with founders, senior executives, and boards who know that good governance doesn't happen by chance. Strong compliance frameworks help businesses make confident decisions, respond to opportunities, and build trust with shareholders, investors, and regulators.

So, what is corporate compliance? The answer depends on the type of company you're running. Every Australian company has obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), while ASX-listed entities also need to comply with the ASX Listing Rules and report against the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations . Understanding how these frameworks work together is an important part of building a well-governed business.

What is corporate compliance?

Overall, corporate compliance is about ensuring your company meets its legal, regulatory, and governance obligations.

For private companies and unlisted public companies that usually means complying with the Corporations Act. This includes maintaining statutory registers, documenting board decisions, meeting ASIC reporting requirements, and ensuring directors understand and fulfil their legal duties.

For ASX-listed companies, the compliance landscape extends much further. Boards must also comply with the ASX Listing Rules, manage continuous disclosure obligations, and demonstrate strong corporate governance practices that support market confidence.

Good compliance isn't about creating unnecessary administration. It provides a framework that helps boards make informed decisions while reducing legal and regulatory risk.

Compliance starts with the Corporations Act

The Corporations Act forms the foundation of Australian company law and applies to every registered company.

Some of the key obligations include:

maintaining accurate company registers;
recording board and shareholder resolutions;
notifying ASIC of key company changes within the required timeframes;
meeting directors' duties and governance responsibilities; and
keeping company records up to date.

Many businesses manage these obligations internally. As companies grow, however, governance often becomes more complex. New directors join the board, corporate structures evolve, and transactions become more sophisticated, making ongoing oversight increasingly valuable.

ASX-listed companies have additional responsibilities

For listed companies, compliance doesn't stop with the Corporations Act.

The ASX Listing Rules establish additional obligations covering continuous disclosure, shareholder approvals, capital raisings, related party transactions, and market announcements. These requirements help maintain a fair, informed, and transparent market for investors.

For junior resources companies, compliance often becomes part of everyday decision-making. Raising capital, announcing exploration results, or responding to ASX queries all require careful consideration of the ASX Listing Rules and their practical application.

Having experienced advisers available throughout these processes helps boards make timely decisions while remaining compliant.

The "if not, why not" approach to corporate governance

One of the defining features of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations is the "if not, why not" approach.

Unlike legislation, these principles and recommendations aren't mandatory. Instead, listed companies are encouraged to adopt the governance practices that are appropriate for their business. If a recommendation hasn't been adopted, the company must explain why in its Corporate Governance Statement.

This flexibility is particularly valuable for smaller ASX-listed companies. A junior explorer with a lean management team won't always have the same governance framework as a large multinational company. The principles and recommendations recognise those differences while still encouraging transparency and accountability.

For boards, the focus should always be on implementing governance practices that are practical, appropriate, and clearly explained to the market.

Why good corporate compliance matters

Strong corporate compliance supports far more than regulatory obligations.

Effective governance helps companies:

build confidence with investors and shareholders;
support capital raisings and commercial transactions;
reduce the risk of governance issues becoming regulatory issues;
improve board decision-making; and
demonstrate accountability to regulators and the market.

Companies with strong governance frameworks are often better positioned to respond when opportunities or challenges arise because their processes are already in place.

How Hardies Lawyers can help

At Hardies Lawyers , we understand the pressures facing founders, senior executives, and boards because we've worked alongside them.

Our team advises companies across every stage of the corporate lifecycle, from day-to-day governance matters through to ASX compliance , board restructures, and major corporate transactions. We provide practical corporate compliance services that are tailored to the realities of growing businesses, particularly ASX-listed microcaps in the mining and resources sector.

We also assist companies with governance reviews, drafting Corporate Governance Statements, and providing ongoing advice as their trusted corporate governance lawyers.

Good governance creates better businesses

Good compliance isn't only about ticking boxes - its focus is on creating the governance framework that allows directors to focus on growing the business with confidence.

Understanding what is corporate compliance is the first step, however maintaining that framework as your company grows is what helps protect your business, strengthen investor confidence, and support long-term success.

Talk to Hardies Lawyers

If your company is reviewing its governance framework, preparing for an ASX listing , or looking for ongoing compliance support, Hardies Lawyers can help. We provide practical, commercially-focused legal advice tailored to the specific needs of junior explorers that are listed, or intend to list, on ASX.

Get in touch with Hardies Lawyers today to learn how our corporate governance and compliance services can support your business.

Disclaimer : This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

Who can be a director of a company in Australia? A practical guide

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:52:32 GMT

Director changes are common, but getting the process right matters

Boards evolve over time. New directors are appointed to bring fresh experience, others step down as businesses grow, and sometimes a change is needed to support the company's next stage.

E very change brings legal and governance responsibilities. At Hardies Lawyers , we've worked alongside founders, senior executives, and boards long enough to know that getting the paperwork right is only part of the job. Good governance starts with following the correct process from the outset.

A question we're often asked is who can be a director of a company in Australia? The eligibility rules are relatively straightforward, but the appointment or removal of a director still needs to comply with Australian law, your company constitution, and ASIC requirements. If your company is listed on ASX, there are additional governance considerations to keep in mind.

This guide explains who can become a company director, how directors are appointed and removed, and the practical steps that help companies stay compliant throughout the process.

Who can be a director of a company in Australia?

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) sets out the basic eligibility requirements for company directors, but meeting those requirements is only the first step.

So, who can be a director of a company in Australia?

In most cases, a director must:

be at least 18 years old;
provide written consent to act as a director;
hold a Director Identification Number ( Director ID ); and
not be disqualified from managing corporations under Australian law.

For proprietary companies, at least one director must ordinarily reside in Australia. Public companies have additional board composition requirements, including a minimum of 3 directors, with at least 2 ordinarily residing in Australia.

It's also important to check your company constitution before making an appointment. Many constitutions contain provisions about how directors are appointed, who has the authority to approve appointments, and when shareholder approval is required.

Appointing a new director

Once you've identified the right candidate, there are several steps to complete before the appointment is finalised.

Obtain written consent

Every director must provide written consent to act before their appointment takes effect. This document should be retained with your company's records.

Confirm Director ID requirements

All directors are required to have a Director ID issued by Australian Business Registry Services . If your proposed director doesn't already have one, they should apply before, or as soon as possible after, their appointment.

Check your company constitution

Your constitution may set out specific procedures for appointing directors. Depending on how your company is structured, the appointment may require a board resolution, shareholder approval, or both.

Skipping this step can create unnecessary governance issues later.

Pass the appropriate resolutions

The appointment should be properly documented through board minutes or written resolutions. Good record keeping provides a clear audit trail and demonstrates sound corporate governance practices.

Notify ASIC

Once the appointment takes effect, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission ( A SIC ) must be notified within 28 days using the appropriate form. Your internal register of directors should also be updated so your corporate records remain accurate.

Removing or replacing a director

Director changes don't always happen because someone is joining the board. Directors retire, resign, move into different roles, or leave as part of broader governance changes.

The process will depend on the circumstances and your company's governing documents.

Director resignations

A director can resign by providing written notice to the company. The resignation usually takes effect on the date specified in the notice or, if no date is specified, when the notice is received. In all cases, the resignation must be clear and unequivocal.

The company is then responsible for notifying ASIC within the required timeframe.

Removal by shareholders

Shareholders may also have the power to remove a director, although the process varies depending on the type of company and the terms of the company's constitution.

For many companies, an ordinary resolution of shareholders is sufficient. Listed companies and public companies may have additional procedural requirements that need to be followed carefully.

Before taking any action, review both the Corporations Act and your company constitution. The legislation provides the legal framework, while the constitution often contains the practical rules that apply to your business.

Governance doesn't stop with ASIC

Many people think the process ends once ASIC has been notified. In reality, that's only one part of good governance.

Every director appointment or resignation is an opportunity to review your company's governance framework and ensure your records remain up to date.

That includes:

updating statutory registers;
recording board and shareholder resolutions;
reviewing delegated authorities where required;
updating governance policies and board records; and
considering any market disclosure obligations.

For listed entities, director changes will also trigger obligations under the ASX Listing Rules . Depending on the circumstances, announcements may need to be made promptly to keep the market informed.

Strong governance builds confidence with shareholders, investors, regulators, and other stakeholders. Small administrative oversights can quickly become compliance issues if processes aren't followed consistently.

Common mistakes to avoid

Most director appointments and resignations are straightforward. Problems usually arise because a simple step has been missed.

Some of the most common mistakes we see are:

appointing a director before obtaining written consent;
forgetting to notify ASIC within the required timeframe;
failing to update the company's statutory registers;
overlooking provisions in the company's constitution;
assuming every appointment or removal follows the same process; and
missing governance or disclosure obligations for listed companies.

Taking the time to complete each step properly helps to reduce risk and avoids unnecessary complications later.

Getting director appointments right

Changing directors is part of the natural evolution of any company. A well-managed appointment or resignation helps maintain compliance, supports strong governance, and provides confidence to shareholders and regulators.

Understanding who can be a director of a company in Australia is a good starting point, but every board should also have clear processes for appointing, removing, and recording director changes. Keeping your governance framework up to date today can prevent costly issues tomorrow.

Need advice on your corporate governance obligations?

At Hardies Lawyers , we work closely with founders, senior executives, and boards to help companies manage governance and compliance with ease. From director appointments and board restructures to ongoing corporate compliance, we provide practical legal advice tailored to your business.

Get in touch with Hardies Lawyers to discuss your governance requirements or learn how we can support your board with ongoing corporate compliance.

Disclaimer : This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.