Summary#
Bill PR63, the Martin Farms Limited Act, 2026, is a proposed special law to revive Martin Farms Limited, which the bill says was dissolved in 2021. If it becomes law, the company would be restored to its legal position as of its dissolution, subject to rights anyone acquired after that date. The bill’s stated purpose is to let the company deal with property held in its name when it was dissolved.
- The company would regain its property, rights, privileges and franchises as of the dissolution date, subject to later-acquired rights.
- Its liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts would also be restored.
- The bill does not transfer the company’s property to Robert L. Martin personally.
- The Act would take effect on the day it receives Royal Assent.
What it means for you#
- Martin Farms Limited: If the bill becomes law, it would be revived and restored to its legal position as if it had not been dissolved, subject to rights acquired by others since its dissolution.
- Robert L. Martin: The bill says he applied for revival and represented that he was a director when the company was dissolved. It gives him no personal ownership of the company’s property.
- People or businesses with rights involving the company: Their rights acquired after dissolution are expressly protected. The bill does not explain how to resolve any dispute about whether a right was acquired or how it is affected.
- Others: The bill does not create a new public service, tax, fee, fine or application process.
Money#
No cost information is available in the supplied material.
- The bill does not state a public spending amount, staffing requirement, fee, or payment to the applicant.
- The company’s debts and other liabilities would be restored along with its rights and property.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not identify the property the company wants to deal with or say what action it intends to take.
- It does not explain how disputes over the company’s restored property, contracts or liabilities would be handled.
- It does not set out procedures, timelines, oversight or reporting requirements.
- The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or received Royal Assent.
Case for#
- The bill could let the company deal with property that was held in its name when it was dissolved.
- Restoring the company’s legal position also restores its liabilities, contracts and debts, rather than only restoring its rights.
- The bill protects rights acquired by others after the dissolution.
Case against#
- The revival may affect how property, contracts and liabilities from before dissolution are handled, while the bill gives no process for resolving disputes.
- The bill does not identify the property or explain why revival is needed to deal with it.
- It is unclear how the protection for rights acquired after dissolution would apply in particular cases.