Australia’s New Merger Laws Are Now in Force: What Business Owners Need to Know

Australia’s New Merger Laws Are Now in Force: What Business Owners Need to Know

Home » Malcolm Chan

Australia’s New Merger Laws Are Now in Force: What Business Owners Need to Know

}

3 min read

10 Sep 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    Mandatory ACCC notification has applied since 1 January 2026 to acquisitions that meet the relevant thresholds and are not exempt.
  • ࠂ
    Further requirements for certain asset acquisitions and share acquisitions resulting in specified voting-power increases commenced on 1 April 2026. The voting-power requirements apply only where the general notification thresholds are also met.
  • ࠂ
    A notifiable acquisition cannot be completed until ACCC approval is obtained or a notification waiver is granted.
  • ࠂ
    The Phase 1 notification fee is $56,800 for 2026-27, while Phase 2 fees can be significantly higher.
  • ࠂ
    Early advice can help businesses work out whether notification is required and build realistic timing and costs into the deal.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Australia’s merger laws changed significantly on 1 January 2026. For acquisitions that meet the notification thresholds, businesses must now notify the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and obtain clearance before the deal can proceed.

Since the new regime began, further asset and voting-power thresholds have commenced and the ACCC has updated its guidance based on the first months of operation. If you are buying a business, shares or assets, merger clearance now needs to be considered early - not just before completion.

What’s Changed on 1 January 2026?

Australia moved from a largely voluntary merger clearance system to a mandatory regime. If an acquisition is within scope, meets a notification threshold and no exemption applies, the parties must notify the ACCC and wait for clearance before completing.

The rules apply broadly to acquisitions of shares and assets. They can also capture a series of smaller acquisitions over time.

New from 1 April 2026: asset and voting-power thresholds

The merger regime was expanded further on 1 April 2026, introducing additional notification requirements that businesses need to consider when assessing a proposed acquisition. These changes apply to:

  1. Certain asset acquisitions

Some acquisitions of assets that do not comprise all or substantially all of a business may now require notification where the relevant acquirer-revenue and transaction-value thresholds are met.

  1. Changes in voting power

Additional rules can apply to certain increases in voting power. The precise trigger differs according to the type of target entity, the acquirer’s existing voting power and whether the acquirer controls the target. For example, this can include an increase from 20% or less to more than 20% in an unlisted company that is not widely held, or an increase from more than 20% but less than 50% to 50% or more in a body corporate. Not every increase in voting power above 20% automatically requires notification.

Do You Need to Notify the ACCC?

The thresholds are not simply a single dollar test. The main tests are generally summarised below:

Threshold When it may apply Key figures
Large merged firm The combined Australian revenue of the parties is substantial and the target revenue or transaction-value limb is met. Combined Australian revenue of at least $200m AND the:·         target Australian revenue is at least $50m; OR·         global transaction value is at least $250m
Very large acquirer A very large Australian business acquires a smaller target. Acquirer group Australian revenue is at least $500m AND target Australian revenue is at least $10m
Serial acquisitions Relevant acquisitions during the preceding
3 years may be aggregated where they predominantly involve the same or substitutable goods or services.Note: The ACCC’s August 2026 FAQs confirm that qualifying acquisitions completed before 1 January 2026 may be counted but acquisitions with target Australian revenue below $2m are excluded.
Ordinary $200m combined-revenue or $500m acquirer-revenue limb must still be met (subject to exclusions).  That is the accumulated target Australian revenue is at least $50m (large merged firm) or $10m (very large acquirer).
Certain asset acquisitions From 1 April 2026, some asset acquisitions that are not all or substantially all of a business can be caught. Applies where the acquirer group has Australian revenue of at least $200m AND:·         global transaction value is at least $200m; OR·         Australian revenue is at least $500m AND global transaction value is at least $50m

Important: Where one or more of the notification thresholds above are met, notification is only required if the target is connected with Australia and no exemptions apply.  Meeting a monetary threshold is only part of the analysis.  Every transaction needs to be considered on its own facts. The Australian connection, exemptions, transaction structure, voting power and previous acquisitions may also matter. 

What about Exemptions?

Some transactions are exempt even if a threshold would otherwise be met. Exemptions cover particular land and financial-market transactions, internal restructures, acquisitions by external administrators and other specified arrangements.

The practical message? Do not assume a deal is outside the regime because it involves assets, a minority interest or a smaller target. Check the rules early.

The Application Process

For a transaction that may need ACCC clearance, the process can be viewed in four steps:

 

ACCC-Flow-Chart

Which Pathway Should You Use?

For straightforward transactions, the ACCC says the short notification form will be appropriate in most cases. A long form is more likely to be needed where there is greater competition risk or complexity.

A notification waiver may be available for a transaction that technically meets a threshold but clearly does not raise material competition or consumer concerns. If granted, the waiver removes the obligation to lodge a formal notification. A waiver application is not simply a preliminary step before a formal notification, and businesses should choose the pathway that best fits the transaction. If the ACCC does not decide a waiver application within 25 business days, it cannot grant the waiver and is considered a deemed refusal.

Pre-notification discussions are optional but can be useful for complex deals or where the information requirements are unclear. The FAQs also confirm that parties may be able to notify on the basis of a sufficiently developed Heads of Agreement rather than waiting for every transaction document to be finalised.

How long can the ACCC review take - and what does it cost?

Stage Timing What it means 2026-27 fee
Pre-notification discussion No set timeline Allows parties to provide draft notification application and transaction documents to identify if further information is needed.ACCC recommends parties initiate this process at least 2 weeks before formal notification for acquisitions that clearly do not raise material concerns.If no determination is made in 25 business days, the application will be deemed to be denied. $8,300
Phase 1 Up to 30 business days* Initial review of application lodged.  Most transactions are expected to be resolved here. Earliest approval is generally in
15 business days.  Merger will either be cleared in this phase or progress to Phase 2.
$56,800
Phase 2 Up to a further 90 business days* A deeper review where competition concerns require further assessment. At the end, the merger can be put into effect with or without conditions or be blocked by the ACCC. $475,000 to $1.595m (additional fee, depending on transaction value)
Public-benefit application
(where available)
50 business days* Optional application. Only available after the ACCC has either not approved the acquisition or approved it subject to conditions. Must be made within 21 calendar days after the relevant ACCC decision. $401,000

* Statutory periods can be extended or adjusted in certain circumstances or unilaterally varied by the ACCC.

One Timing Trap to Remember

ACCC approval does not always mean the transaction can complete immediately. There is generally a 14-calendar-day period after the ACCC publishes its reasons before completion can occur, allowing time for an application to the Australian Competition Tribunal. An approved acquisition generally also needs to be completed within 12 months of the ACCC’s decision.

What’s Happening in Practice

The ACCC’s half-year results give businesses some useful comfort. From 1 January to 30 June 2026, it received 145 merger notifications and 286 notification waiver applications. It approved 115 notifications in Phase 1, with 6 notifications progressed to Phase 2 for a more in-depth assessment.

The ACCC also reported that 92% of acquisitions were decided within 20 business days through either an early Phase 1 decision or a notification waiver. That is encouraging, but businesses still need to allow time before lodgement to assess thresholds, prepare the application and deal with information requests.

Four Things to do Before Your Next Acquisition

1. Check the ACCC notification rules early, while the deal structure and timetable are still being developed.

2. Look at the parties’ Australian revenue, transaction value and relevant acquisitions made during the previous 3 years and consider whether the April 2026 asset or voting-power rules apply.

3. Build ACCC timing, fees and the post-approval waiting period into the transaction documents and completion plan.

4. Get advice before assuming an exemption or notification waiver will apply.

The Bottom Line

The new merger regime is now part of doing deals in Australia. For many acquisitions, the ACCC process will be straightforward. But if notification is required, getting the timing or threshold analysis wrong can delay completion and add significant cost.

The best approach is to consider merger clearance at the start of the transaction, so you know what is required before the deal gathers momentum.

Planning an Acquisition? Talk to Us Early.

If you are buying a business, shares or assets, getting the ACCC analysis right from the outset can save time, cost and uncertainty later.

Our Hillhouse Corporate & Commercial team can help you assess whether notification is required, identify the right ACCC pathway and structure the transaction around a realistic approval and completion timetable.

Contact Vicki Yeung, Senior Associate or Malcolm Chan, Associate, to discuss your proposed acquisition before you commit to the deal timetable.

E: vicki@hillhouse.com.au or malcolm@hillhouse.com.au

P: 07 3220 1144

This article is general information only and reflects the position as at September 2026. It is not legal advice. Merger notification requirements are transaction-specific and may change.

Areas of Expertise

A Judgment Isn’t Enough: Can the Debtor Actually Pay?

A Judgment Isn’t Enough: Can the Debtor Actually Pay?

Home » Malcolm Chan

A Judgment Isn’t Enough: Can the Debtor Actually Pay?

}

3 min read

16 Jun 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    A judgment confirms that money is owed, but it does not guarantee payment.
  • ࠂ
    Before commencing, it is important to consider whether the debtor has assets or income that any judgment can be enforced against.
  • ࠂ
    Legal costs are only partly recoverable in most cases, and a costs order will rarely if ever cover all costs incurred.
  • ࠂ
    An effective debt recovery strategy considers both the strength of the claim and the likelihood of recovering the debt and your legal costs.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Further to our previous article on the options available when chasing an unpaid invoice, one of the most important questions a creditor should ask before commencing legal proceedings is whether the debtor actually has the ability to pay. A successful court outcome is only part of the equation. The real issue is whether the debt can actually and practically be recovered.

Even where a creditor obtain judgment confirming that money is owed, payment is not automatic. If the debtor does not pay voluntarily, further enforcement action may be required to recover the money and your legal costs.

Judgement Is Not Recovery

It is understandable to assume that obtaining judgment means the matter is effectively over. However In reality, a judgment simply confirms that the debt is legally due.

If the debtor has no assets, no income, or no practical source of funds, enforcement may be futile for a host of reasons.

Therefore a strategic and cost-benefit analysis of the question even if we “win” the court case can the money ultimately be obtained should be undertaken before commencing court proceedings. Legal fees, court filing fees, and enforcement costs can quickly outweigh the amount in dispute, particularly if the debtor is potentially insolvent or difficult to locate.

Costs and Commerciality 

Legal costs are another important consideration.

You have to assume you will be out of pocket even if you “win” the case and the person pays.

Even if you are successful in a court case and obtain a costs order, those costs are usually assessed on a standard basis. This generally results in recovery of only about 50–60% of the actual legal fees actually incurred.

An indemnity costs order is more favourable but it is typically reserved for exceptional circumstances where the other party has acted unreasonably, improperly, or in a way that justifies a more significant costs order. Even in those cases, recovery may be closer to 70–80% of actual legal fees, and sometimes more depending on the circumstances.

Accordingly, the existence of a strong claim does not necessarily mean litigation is commercially worthwhile. The likely recovery outcome should always be weighed against the anticipated legal costs.

Assessing the Debtor's Position

Before commencing the debt recovery process or court proceeding, creditors should make reasonable enquiries into the debtor’s financial circumstances. Some practical steps include:

  • Conducting a land title search to determine whether the debtor owns real property;
  • Do a company search (if the debtor is a company) or a bankruptcy search (if the debtor is a natural person)
  • Identifying whether the debtor is employed, which may assist with enforcement through a redirection of earnings
  • Investigating whether any third parties owe money to the debtor, which may support a redirection of debts
  • Considering whether there are other assets, guarantees, or corporate structures that may improve recovery prospects

These enquiries can provide valuable insight into whether legal proceedings are likely to result in a meaningful recovery or whether the better commercial decision is to avoid further costs.

Enforcement After Judgment 

If the debtor still fails to pay after judgment, the law provides a number of enforcement options. These include enforcement warrants for seizure and sale of property, redirection of debts, and redirection of earnings, which can allow part of the debtor’s wages to be paid directly to the creditor.

In practice terms, a creditor may be able to enforce against property, redirect income at source, or recover money owed to the debtor by third parties.

However, all of these options depend on the debtor having assets, income or other recoverable funds available in the first place.

A statutory demand could also be issued against a Company debtor.

A Commercial Decision 

Sometimes the most commercially sensible decision is not to proceed if the debtor has little or no capacity to pay. Where there is no meaningful asset base, no employment, and no identifiable source of recovery, additional litigation may simply increase losses rather than improved the outcome.

That is why debt recovery should always be approached strategically. The key question is not simply whether judgment can be obtained, but whether it is likely to result in actual recovery.

A Measured Recovery Strategy 

A staged approach is often the most effective. Issue a demand first, assess the debtor’s financial position, and then decide whether proceedings are justified.

This approach helps ensure that legal action is supported by sound commercial judgment and that enforcement prospects are considered from the outset.

The law can provide a remedy, but it cannot guarantee payment. For creditors, the ultimate objective is not a judgment on paper, but money in hand.

How We Can Help 

If you are considering legal action to recover debt, our Litigation and Dispute Resolution team can help you assess both the strength of your claim and the practical prospects of recovery. Contact Hillhouse Legal Partners to discuss your circumstances and the most commercially sensible path forward.

Queensland Trusts: The 2025 Reform Explained- What It Means For You

Queensland Trusts: The 2025 Reform Explained- What It Means For You

Home » Malcolm Chan

Queensland Trusts: The 2025 Reform Explained - What It Means for You

}

3 min read

12 May 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    The Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) introduces a modern, clearer framework for how trusts operate in Queensland
  • ࠂ
    Trustees now have broader powers, but those powers come with more clearly defined duties and accountability
  • ࠂ
    Beneficiaries have stronger rights, including better access to information and improved financial protections
  • ࠂ
    Now is the time to review your trust deed and governance processes to ensure they align with the new regime

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

A long-awaited reset for trust law in Queensland

With the introduction of the Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) (the Act), the State has amended a 50-year old legislation that better reflects how trusts are used today.

While the core concept of a trust remains unchanged, the way trusts are administered, documented and challenged has evolved. The new Act is designed to simplify interpretation, improve transparency, and provide clearer guidance for trustees and beneficiaries alike.

A stronger statutory framework

The new Act now intends to operate despite inconsistent wording in a trust deed, except where the legislation itself permits otherwise. In practical terms, this means the trust deeds now need to be checked against the Act rather than treated as automatically prevailing over it.

Broader powers and clearer duties of trustees

The new Act now expands authority given to trustees. Trustees are now equipped with powers similar to those of an absolute owner of the trust assets, unless the trust deed says otherwise. This is intended to make day-to-day administration more workable and less dependent on long lists of specific powers in the trust deed.

This increased flexibility is particularly relevant for investment and decision-making. Trustees can now delegate certain functions, including investment responsibilities, provided strict requirements are met around documentation, time limits and oversight.

However, this is not a relaxation of responsibility. Quite the opposite.

The Act introduces a clear statutory framework for trustee duties which cannot be contracted out, requiring trustees to:

  • Act honestly and in good faith
  • Exercise appropriate care, skill and diligence
  • Prioritise the interests of beneficiaries
  • Maintain proper records and provide access when requested.

For professional trustees or those with specialist expertise, the expectations are even higher. This reflects a broader theme of the reforms: greater power paired with greater accountability.

 Clearer rules around who can act as trustee

The new legislation also tightens the rules around trustee eligibility and succession.

Under the new Act, a person can generally be a trustee unless they fall into a specific ineligible category. The Act now expressly prevents the following from being appointed as a trustee:

  • A child (under 18).
  • An individual who is insolvent under administration (e.g. a person subject to a bankruptcy order).
  • A corporation that is a “Chapter 5 body corporate” (a company in administration, being wound‑up, or otherwise under external administration).

This means trust deeds no longer need to rely on specific clauses in the trust deeds to exclude minor or insolvent entities.

At the same time, the process for appointing and replacing trustees has been made more practical, particularly where incapacity becomes an issue because the Act builds in statutory fallbacks instead of always requiring a court order.

Trustees can now be appointed by the appointor, by any other mechanism in the deed, or by statutory powers if no one else acts within a reasonable time, and the Act also clarifies who may remove a trustee (e.g., appointor or continuing trustees) where the trustee is unfit, incapable, or unable to act, reducing the need for ad‑hoc court applications.

A particularly useful change arises when a sole trustee loses capacity. Previously, if the deed did not provide for replacement, a court order was often required just to swap in a new trustee. Under the new Act, the attorney or administrator with authority over the last continuing trustee’s financial matters can now appoint a new trustee (including themselves), without needing to go to court first, so long as no other mechanism in the trust is available.

This is a welcome change for many families and business structures, where delays or uncertainty around trustee succession can create unnecessary risk.

Stronger rights and protections for beneficiaries

From a beneficiary perspective, the reforms introduce greater transparency and more meaningful protections.

Beneficiaries now have clearer rights to access trust information as Trustees are required to maintain accurate records and make them available for inspection and copying upon request.  Where necessary, the beneficiary may ask the court to order disclosure.

There is also increased flexibility when it comes to financial support. The statutory allowance for applying capital toward a beneficiary’s maintenance, education, or advancement has increased substantially from the former $2,000 figure. The new threshold is $100,000 or half of the beneficiary’s presumptive entitlement, whichever is greater, which may reduce the need for court applications in many ordinary cases.

Importantly, where distribution issues arise, beneficiaries may now be able to take action directly against recipients of incorrectly distributed assets, rather than navigating more complex recovery pathways.

A more accessible approach to dispute resolution

By explicitly including the District Court into the statutory framework to hear trust-related matters below the $750,000 monetary threshold, the Act aims to make resolving trust disputes more efficient and accessible as not every trust-related application needs to be heard at the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, with expanded jurisdiction, the courts are better equipped to deal with trust-related issues, including appointing or removing trustees and reviewing trustee conduct. This should help reduce time and cost barriers that have historically discouraged parties from seeking resolution.

What you should do in practice

In many cases, these statutory changes will not require a complete overhaul of existing trust arrangements. However, they do create a new baseline for how trusts should be managed. We encourage you to consider taking the following actions now, depending on your capacity or role.

If you are a trustee:

  • Review the trust deed to identify provisions that may no longer operate as expected under the new Act, especially provisions dealing with powers, delegation, records, indemnities, and beneficiary access to information
  • Check and ensure all trustees meet the eligibility requirements under the Act
  • Check whether trust accounts, minutes, and supporting records are complete and kept separately for each trust
  • Review any trustee remuneration, commissions, or related-party payment arrangements to ensure they can be justified if challenged
  • Confirm that there is a practical process for replacing the trustee if a current trustee retires, dies, loses capacity, or becomes insolvent

If you are a family or business owner using a trust:

  • Review any family trust, unit trust, or trading trust used in your business structure to make sure it still achieves the intended commercial and succession outcomes under the new legislation
  • Consider whether the broader trustee powers affect long-term control, succession planning, or asset protection arrangements
  • Obtain legal and tax advice before changing a trust deed, because amendments may have consequences including tax, duty, and estate-planning implications

If you are a beneficiary:

  • Familiarise yourself with your rights obtain trust accounts, records, or explanations from the trustee
  • Seek prompt legal advice if you suspect trust property has been transferred, distributed, or dealt with in a way that may not comply with the trust

The bottom line

The Trusts Act 2025 (Qld) represents a meaningful shift towards clarity, accountability and modern practice.

For trustees, it brings greater flexibility, but also a higher standard of conduct. For beneficiaries, it delivers improved visibility and protection.

As with most legislative change, the opportunity lies in being proactive. A timely review now can help ensure your trust structure continues to operate as intended, without unnecessary risk.

Next steps

If you would like support reviewing your trust deed or understanding how these changes apply to your circumstances, our Wills & Estates team is here to help.