ASIC Disqualified 36 Directors in 2025–26: What Queensland Directors Need to Know About Personal Liability in 2026

ASIC disqualified 36 company directors from managing corporations in 2025–26, more than doubling the figure from the previous year. If you are a director in Queensland with a history of company failures, an ATO debt, or current financial difficulty, this is not a background statistic. It is a live enforcement risk.

What Is a Director Disqualification Under s 206F?

Section 206F of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) gives ASIC the power to disqualify a person from managing corporations for up to five years without going to court. It is an administrative power, not a criminal proceeding. That means ASIC can act faster, with a lower evidentiary threshold, than civil or criminal litigation. Our director disputes lawyers advise Queensland directors facing ASIC disqualification proceedings.

The key trigger is involvement in the management of two or more companies that have failed within a seven-year period, where liquidators have lodged a report under s 533 of the Corporations Act confirming that the company cannot pay its debts. There is no requirement for ASIC to prove dishonesty, deliberate misconduct, or personal fault. If you were a director of companies that failed, that is the foundation for ASIC’s investigation.

Once ASIC issues a notice of proposed disqualification, the director has 20 business days to make a submission. ASIC then determines whether to disqualify and for how long, up to a maximum of five years. A person disqualified under s 206F can apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.

The 2025–26 Numbers: What They Mean for Directors

ASIC’s media release 26-185MR (published 10 August 2026) reported 150 total administrative enforcement outcomes in 2025–26. Of those, 36 were director disqualifications under s 206F. In 2024–25, there were 14. In 2023–24, there were 35.

The 2025–26 figure represents a 157% increase from the prior year, driven by ASIC’s deliberate use of its administrative powers alongside its record court enforcement year (which separately secured $830 million in civil penalties).

ASIC Chair Sarah Court described the administrative powers as “capable, in certain circumstances, of intervening more quickly than court proceedings and restricting individuals and businesses considered unsuitable to continue operating.” The message is that ASIC is using every enforcement lever available, and the administrative track is accelerating.

Among the 2025–26 disqualifications was Kylie Campbell, a Victorian property development director who received the maximum five-year disqualification following company failures that left substantial debts and losses to creditors. The Campbell outcome is a useful illustration: the maximum penalty, applied efficiently via the administrative track rather than costly court proceedings, within the same financial year the company failures were confirmed.

For Queensland directors, this has three practical implications:

1. Repeat failure increases risk significantly. A director who has been involved in one company that went into liquidation is not automatically a target. Two or more failures within seven years places that director directly within ASIC’s line of sight.
2. Liquidator reports are the trigger. Every liquidator report lodged under s 533 for a failed company feeds ASIC’s administrative enforcement queue. If your company went into liquidation and the liquidator prepared a statutory report, that report exists on ASIC’s files.
3. The process is faster than you might expect. ASIC does not need to commence litigation. A notice of proposed disqualification can be issued administratively, with a 20-business-day response window, before a disqualification is recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register.

The New DIN Disqualification Ground: s 206FA

The Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 30 June 2026. Among its provisions is a new disqualification ground (proposed s 206FA of the Corporations Act) that allows ASIC to disqualify a director for up to three years for failing to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN) when directed to do so by the Registrar.

This is distinct from s 206F. It does not require involvement in multiple failed companies. It applies where a director was directed to obtain a DIN and failed to comply within the required timeframe. From 1 July 2027, companies will also be required to report director DINs at every key corporate lodgement, and new directors must provide their DIN within seven days of appointment.

The practical message: if you have not obtained your Director Identification Number, do it now. The Australian Business Registry Services (ABRS) portal remains the mechanism for obtaining one. Non-compliance with a direction from the Registrar will now carry disqualification risk in addition to the existing civil penalty exposure.

A Representative Case: What ASIC Actually Does

ASIC’s 26-185MR release described a representative corporate governance case involving a former director of property development companies in Victoria (Kylie Jane Campbell). ASIC announced on 26 February 2026 that Campbell had been disqualified from managing companies for five years, the maximum period under s 206F.

The disqualification arose from her involvement in three failed companies that left more than $4.55 million in unsecured debts. ASIC assisted by providing funding from the Assetless Administration Fund to prepare the statutory reports, which was used as the evidential foundation for the disqualification.

This case illustrates a pattern: ASIC uses the Assetless Administration Fund to fund liquidator investigations of insolvent companies where the director may not have assets to pay for the statutory report. That funding makes it possible for ASIC to investigate and disqualify directors of small, failed companies who might otherwise escape scrutiny due to a lack of available funds in the estate.

The broader enforcement picture also includes criminal convictions alongside ASIC’s administrative powers. On 2 July 2026, Joanne Pellew — a former Western Australian director and founder of labour hire company Ochre Workforce Solutions — was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Western Australia of multiple offences under the Corporations Act 2001, including authorising asset transfers of approximately $739,655 to a related entity and managing corporations while disqualified (s 206A). Pellew was subsequently sentenced to more than three years imprisonment. The case serves as a reminder that ASIC’s enforcement arsenal extends well beyond administrative disqualification: directors who engage in phoenix activity or ignore an existing disqualification order face criminal prosecution and potential imprisonment.

How Disqualification Works: The s 206F Process Step by Step

Understanding the administrative process helps directors and their advisers respond appropriately if ASIC commences action.

1. ASIC identifies the director. ASIC reviews liquidator reports lodged under s 533 for companies where the director is named. Two or more reports within seven years triggers the review queue.
2. ASIC issues a notice of proposed disqualification. The director receives a written notice setting out the basis for ASIC’s proposed action and inviting a written submission within 20 business days.
3. The director responds (or does not). A well-prepared submission can address mitigating factors: the director’s role was limited, the failure was not due to financial mismanagement, external factors (COVID-19, industry collapse) caused the failure, the director took proactive steps once financial difficulty became apparent. Ignoring the notice is the worst possible response.
4. ASIC makes its decision. ASIC decides whether to disqualify and for how long (up to five years). The decision is recorded on the Banned and Disqualified Register, which is publicly searchable.
5. Review is available. A disqualified person has the right to seek a review of ASIC’s decision before the Administrative Review Tribunal. Legal representation at this stage is critical.

What a Disqualification Means in Practice

A person disqualified under s 206F cannot manage a corporation during the disqualification period. “Manage” is interpreted broadly and covers: being appointed as a director; participating in decisions that affect the whole, or a substantial part, of a company’s business; acting in a position that allows the person to exert significant influence over the company’s affairs.

Acting in management while disqualified is a criminal offence under s 206A of the Corporations Act, carrying imprisonment of up to five years and substantial financial penalties. The practical impact extends to financing: many commercial lenders, property developers, and joint venture partners conduct ASIC banned-and-disqualified checks as part of due diligence. A disqualification can effectively end a director’s commercial career for its duration.

Factors ASIC Considers in Deciding Whether to Disqualify

ASIC’s published guidance (Information Sheet 42) and case history indicate the following factors influence its disqualification decision:

• Number and scale of failed companies
• Total debt left in those companies (unsecured creditors, employee entitlements, ATO)
• Whether the director had professional advisers and took advice
• Whether the director cooperated with liquidators
• Whether financial records were maintained in accordance with s 286 of the Corporations Act
• The director’s prior enforcement history with ASIC
• Whether the director took active steps to address the company’s financial difficulty before insolvency
• The director’s personal circumstances (age, capacity, ongoing business activities)

This list matters because it identifies where a well-prepared submission can make a real difference. A director who proactively appointed a voluntary administrator when financial difficulty became apparent, who cooperated fully with the liquidator, and who maintained complete financial records is in a materially better position than one who did not.

The ATO Connection: When Tax Debt Increases Disqualification Risk

ASIC’s administrative disqualification record is separate from the ATO’s Director Penalty Notice regime, but they often operate in parallel. A director with an unpaid ATO debt in a failed company is likely to appear in liquidator reports as a creditor who was not paid. If the ATO is an unsecured creditor in two or more failed companies, that is noted in the statutory reports that feed ASIC’s s 206F review.

In 2024–25, the ATO issued more than 84,000 Director Penalty Notices. From 1 July 2026, Payday Superannuation commenced, with the ATO’s enforcement machinery now tracking super payment in real time. Directors with ATO debts from multiple company failures face both DPN personal liability exposure and s 206F disqualification risk simultaneously.

Six Steps for Queensland Directors to Reduce Disqualification Risk Now

1. Count your failed companies. If you have been a director of two or more companies that went into liquidation in the past seven years, and liquidators prepared statutory reports for those companies, you are in the s 206F review window. Obtain legal advice now, before you receive a notice.
2. Check the ASIC Banned and Disqualified Register. Search your name. If a prior action has been taken that you were not aware of (for example, in relation to a company where you were a director in name only), it will appear here.
3. Ensure your DIN is obtained and current. If you have not obtained a Director Identification Number, do it at abrs.gov.au immediately. If you were directed to obtain one and have not complied, seek legal advice before ASIC takes administrative action under the new s 206FA.
4. Preserve all financial records for any company you manage. Section 286 of the Corporations Act requires companies to maintain financial records. Failure to do so is both a criminal offence and a factor ASIC weighs heavily in s 206F decisions. If a liquidator cannot reconstruct the company’s financial position because records were not kept, that reflects directly on the directors.
5. If financial difficulty is emerging, act early. The safe harbour provisions (s 588GA) and voluntary administration process (Part 5.3A) are tools that can demonstrate proactive conduct if a company later fails. Taking professional advice and documenting that advice strengthens any future submission to ASIC.
6. If you receive a notice of proposed disqualification, respond. The 20-business-day window is not a courtesy. A well-prepared submission addressing the specific statutory factors is the best defence available at the administrative stage. Engaging a commercial litigation lawyer experienced in ASIC enforcement matters immediately on receipt of the notice is the first step.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ASIC disqualify me without taking me to court?

Yes. Section 206F of the Corporations Act 2001 is an administrative power. ASIC does not need court proceedings to issue a disqualification under this provision. It can disqualify you for up to five years through an administrative process that involves issuing a notice of proposed disqualification and giving you 20 business days to respond. The disqualification is recorded on the ASIC Banned and Disqualified Register, which is publicly searchable.

What if my company failed due to circumstances outside my control (COVID-19, market collapse)?

External circumstances are relevant to the length of any disqualification period, but they do not automatically prevent a disqualification. ASIC considers all circumstances, including whether the director maintained proper financial records, took professional advice, cooperated with the liquidator, and took proactive steps when financial difficulty became apparent. A well-prepared submission addressing these factors gives ASIC grounds to impose a shorter disqualification period or no disqualification at all.

How long does a director disqualification appear on the public register?

ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register records disqualifications for the duration of the disqualification period and may remain searchable beyond that. In practice, any commercial search of ASIC’s register during the disqualification period will return the disqualification. This affects the ability to act as a company director, to obtain finance, and to participate in joint ventures or commercial arrangements that require ASIC due diligence checks.

What is the new DIN disqualification power?

The Business Registries Stabilisation and Uplift Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 30 June 2026, introduces a new power (proposed s 206FA of the Corporations Act) allowing ASIC to disqualify a director for up to three years for failing to obtain a Director Identification Number when directed to do so by the Registrar. This is separate from the s 206F corporate failure-based power. From 1 July 2027, all new director appointments require provision of a DIN within seven days.

Can I still work in business if I am disqualified from managing a corporation?

A disqualification under s 206F prohibits you from being appointed as a director or from “managing” a corporation during the disqualification period. You may still be employed in a non-management capacity by a company, provided you do not participate in decisions affecting the whole or a substantial part of the company’s business or act as a shadow director. The scope of what constitutes “management” is interpreted broadly. Legal advice on the specific restrictions is essential before accepting any role.

Conclusion

The 157% increase in ASIC director disqualifications in 2025–26 is not an isolated anomaly. It reflects a regulator that has expanded its administrative enforcement programme and is using every available tool alongside its record civil litigation year. For Queensland directors with a history of company failures, an ATO debt in a failed estate, or DIN compliance gaps, the risk is real and it is present now.

The administrative disqualification process is faster than court action and does not require ASIC to prove dishonesty. Early legal advice, cooperative engagement, and a well-prepared submission in the 20-business-day window are the most effective risk reduction tools available.

This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances.