Pre-Incorp Docs

Howdy folks,

I’d like to put two requests in the pipeline, and to gauge the feelings from other users on these issues also. This is in relation to new company incorporations through CAS360.

  1. I’d like to see the option to re-print pre-incorp documents from the Company Registrations screen/tab, in much the same way you can do with the post-incorp docs.
    1.5 On this, if the pre-incorp docs can have toggles to choose which docs to print, like the post-incorp, it would be appreciated

  2. While I understand the reason behind having the option to “edit” a company in the preparation screen deactivated once lodged, in the event that a typo has been made and caught within the 24 hour window that ASICs ECR department will fix it up, there’s no way to reprint/reissue the pre-incorp documents in CAS360 - it would be appreciated if this edit option could be made available as part of including the repreparation pf pre-incorp docs.

Thanks guys.


Either that, or include the option to re-do the Share Application and Consent to Use of Registered Office Address available in the Post-Incorp documents area, so we cannot re-do a 201 (though the option to re-prepare pre-incorp docs would be much more preferable)

1 Like

Hi Laneth, I haven’t yet processed incorporations through CAS360, but being able to reprint documents is always a good idea!


@Anne.Wright I can understand the thought behind disallowing it, so that users cannot reproduce a Form 201 etc. and accidentally lodge two copies, or provide the incorrect one to a client for signing, etc. - also would save BGL a bunch of support calls in case someone edits something and doesn’t notice that they themselves have stuffed something up, but it kinda takes away the ability from everyone else.

1 Like

I know what you mean, @Laneth. We are currently implementing some new software and it’s frustrating to be told that a feature that would save us so much time has deliberately not been added because there is a risk we will use it incorrectly. :confused:

That is, of course, my supposition @Anne.Wright and possibly not correct.

Understood @Laneth! :+1:

1 Like