Home › Corporations Law › 9 · Shareholder actions
Module 9 · Shareholder actions
Shareholder actions is the enforcement tail of the course. A breach is usually established earlier in the problem, and the paper then asks what the member can do about it. The skill is remedy selection, so classify the wrong before you write and answer only the question asked.
Cases at a glance
| Case | In a line |
|---|---|
| Brunninghausen | A director dealt personally for a member's shares with hidden advantages, attracting a direct fiduciary duty |
| Ngurli | Equity limits voting power to its conferred purposes |
| Cook v Deeks | The majority cannot ratify a fraud on the minority |
| Peters' American Delicacy | Non expropriating amendments reviewed deferentially, onus on the challenger |
| Gambotto | The 99.7 per cent holder's amendment acquiring the minority failed despite an above value price. Expropriation needs an exceptional purpose plus fairness |
| Sidebottom | The targeted shareholder competed with the company. Expropriating a competitor is proper |
| Gray Eisdell Timms | Five years between threat and expropriation. Delay defeats claimed necessity |
| Swansson | Good faith for leave means honest reasonable belief and no collateral purpose |
| Wayde | The League dropped the club. Prejudice a reasonable director could think fair is not oppression |
| Morgan | Low dividends alone are not oppressive |
| Campbell | Lawful good faith conduct can still oppress. Effect not motive. Undervalue squeeze-outs qualify |
| Tomanovic | Effect not motive. Purchase offers bear on fairness |
| Re Spargos | Diverting the company's business to related entities was oppressive |
| Jenkins | Related company diversion again. Relief must be least intrusive |
| Fexuto | A family company excluded a member and redirected business. Oppressive |
| Re Polyresins | A member of the oppressing majority cannot invoke the remedy |
| Ebrahimi | A mutual confidence company removed a participant from management. Quasi partnership breakdown grounds winding up |
| Loch | The majority withheld important information. Justified loss of confidence grounds winding up |
| ASC v AS Nominees | Loss of confidence can flow from fraud or Act contraventions |
| Re Tivoli | Substratum fails only on fundamental transformation, not a change of tack |
| Re Wondoflex | Conduct entirely outside members' contemplation, though companies may evolve |
| Broken Hill v Bell Resources | s 1324 standing needs affection beyond the ordinary public |
| Allen v Atalay | Creditors can be affected persons under s 1324 |
| Mesenberg | s 1324(10) damages cannot outflank the civil penalty code |
| McCracken | Followed Mesenberg uncomfortably. Arguable the other way |
Attack plan. Choose the remedy before writing. 1. Practical self-help first. Can the member sell out, requisition a meeting (ss 249D, 249F), or remove the directors? 2. Whose wrong is it? A wrong to the company (duty breach, diverted opportunity) points to the statutory derivative action to make the company sue. A wrong to the member in their own capacity points to a personal action or oppression. 3. Oppression (Pt 2F.1) is the flexible workhorse for closely held companies, so run it whenever exclusion, dividend starvation or self-dealing appears. 4. Winding up (s 461(1)(k)) is the drastic residual. Always test it against s 467(4). 5. The equitable limitation where majority voting power is abused (Gambotto). 6. Statutory injunction (s 1324) for threatened contraventions. Then answer the question actually asked. Papers scope tightly ("under s 461(1)(k)", "what steps to bring proceedings") and generality is punished.
| Remedy | Who | Gateway | Typical planted facts | Usual relief |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal action | member | personal right (contract, s 140, Act, special facts fiduciary) | buyout negotiation, withheld offer | damages, rescission |
| Equitable limitation | minority | expropriation or alteration of share rights | constitutional amendment to acquire shares | invalidity, injunction |
| Derivative action | member, officer, former member | leave under s 237(2) | wrongdoers control the board | company sues in its own name |
| Oppression | member (s 234) | commercial unfairness (s 232) | exclusion, no dividends, self-dealing | buyout order (most common) |
| Winding up | contributory | s 461(1) grounds | quasi-partnership breakdown, deadlock | liquidation |
| Injunction | ASIC or affected person | contravention plus interest (s 1324) | threatened capital transaction | restraint, sometimes damages |
Personal actions
RULE. keyringA member may sue personally on a right under a contract, under the constitution's statutory contract (s 140(1)), or under the Act itself. A member may also sue on a fiduciary duty owed directly to them in special circumstances (Brunninghausen). The transforming factors are in Module 4.
- The clearest cases are personal dealings, a director buying the member's shares or borrowing from them while holding undisclosed information.
Equitable limitation on majority decisions
RULE. A majority's votes are the company's decisions, but equity requires that powers conferred for a purpose be exercised for that purpose and not oppressively, and the majority cannot ratify what amounts to a fraud on the minority (Ngurli v McCann; Cook v Deeks; Peters' American Delicacy v Heath).
RULE. checklistAn amendment allowing the expropriation of shares or the alteration of rights attaching to them is valid only where made for a proper purpose and fair in all the circumstances, and the onus is on those supporting the expropriation (Gambotto v WCP, where an amendment allowing the 99.7 per cent holder to acquire the minority compulsorily was invalid despite a price above value).
- Proper purpose is exceptional. The minority holding must expose the company to significant detriment or harm, with expropriation a reasonable response: the competing shareholder (Sidebottom v Kershaw), regulatory compliance, protection of co-operative status. Advancing commercial advantage, a cleaner structure or tax savings is not enough (Gambotto).
- Fairness has two limbs: process (full and balanced disclosure of all material information, independent expert valuation) and substance (a fair price, at least the independent value, weighing assets, dividends, and the nature and future of the company, with market value important but not decisive) (Gambotto).
- A five-year delay between the alleged threat and the expropriation undercuts the claimed necessity (Gray Eisdell Timms).
- Where the amendment does not expropriate or alter share rights, the review is far more deferential. A purpose within the power and no oppression suffices, and the challenger bears the onus (Peters'; Gambotto).
Statutory derivative action: Pt 2F.1A
RULE. gateA member, former member or officer may bring proceedings on behalf of the company with leave (s 236(1)), and proceedings are brought in the company's name so any relief belongs to the company (s 236(2)).
RULE. checklistThe court must grant leave where all five s 237(2) criteria are met (s 237(2)).
- (a) The company will probably not itself bring the proceedings or properly take responsibility for them. Usually straightforward where the alleged wrongdoers control the board or the company has refused to sue.
- (b) The applicant acts in good faith: an honest and reasonable belief that a good cause of action exists, and no collateral purpose amounting to an abuse of process (Swansson v RA Pratt Properties).
- (c) Leave is in the best interests of the company: the character of the company (small, family, joint venture), the business, whether another remedy such as a personal suit or oppression is available, and whether the defendant could meet a judgment (Swansson).
- (d) A serious question to be tried: an identifiable legal or equitable right to be determined, not a merits trial.
- (e) 14 days' written notice to the company, or leave despite its absence where appropriate.
RULE. twistThere is a rebuttable presumption that leave is not in the company's best interests where the proceedings are against a third party, the company has decided not to proceed, and the deciding directors all satisfy the business judgment conditions of good faith, no material personal interest, adequate information and rational belief (s 237(3)). Directors sued for their own breaches are not third parties, so the presumption rarely bites in duty cases.
RULE. arrowRatification of the impugned conduct by the members does not bar a derivative action, though the court may take account of a ratification that was well informed and made for a proper purpose in deciding relief (s 239).
- Costs orders can require the company to indemnify the applicant (s 242). Proceedings cannot be settled or discontinued without leave (s 240).
Statutory oppression remedy: Pt 2F.1
RULE. The court may make any order it considers appropriate where the conduct of a company's affairs, an actual or proposed act or omission, or a resolution is either contrary to the interests of the members as a whole or oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly discriminatory against a member, even in a capacity other than as a member (s 232).
RULE. compassThe limbs state one composite test of commercial unfairness. Ask whether a reasonable commercial bystander, and where directors are impugned a reasonable director with their skill and knowledge weighing the corporate object against the burden imposed, would regard the conduct as unfair (Wayde v NSW Rugby League, where excluding the club was prejudicial but a reasonable director could think it fair; Morgan v 45 Flers Avenue; Campbell v Backoffice Investments).
- Standing is broad (s 234): members (complaining in any capacity), certain former members, transferees not yet registered, and persons ASIC certifies.
- Prejudice or discrimination alone is not enough. The conduct must be unfairly so (Wayde).
- Lawful conduct and good faith conduct can still be oppressive. The test is effect, not motive (Campbell; Tomanovic).
- Context is everything in family and quasi-partnership companies: the history, the purpose of formation, and mutual expectations (for example of participation in management) frame what is unfair.
- Established clusters: exclusion from management against mutual expectation, dividend starvation while directors take fees, diversion of business or assets to related entities (Re Spargos; Jenkins; Fexuto), improper share issues diluting the minority, denial of information, and squeezing the minority out at undervalue (Campbell).
- A member of the oppressing majority cannot invoke the remedy (Re Polyresins).
- Relief (s 233) is unlimited in form, most commonly a buyout of the minority at a fair value, but also winding up, constitutional modification, regulating affairs, or authorising proceedings, and it should cure the oppression in the least intrusive way (Jenkins).
Winding up on the just and equitable ground
RULE. keyringA contributory may apply (s 462(2)) to wind the company up where that is just and equitable (s 461(1)(k)). The ground is enlivened by established though not exhaustive categories, namely breakdown of a quasi partnership founded on mutual trust and confidence (Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries), deadlock, justified loss of confidence in management (Loch v John Blackwood; ASC v AS Nominees), and failure of substratum (Re Tivoli Freeholds).
- Ebrahimi indicators: a personal relationship of mutual confidence, an understanding that members participate in management, and restrictions on transferring interests, the corporate form superimposed on a partnership in substance.
- Failure of substratum requires the company's basic purpose to fail or transform fundamentally, not a mere change of tack. Companies can evolve, especially given s 124 capacity (Tivoli; Re Wondoflex).
Statutory injunction: s 1324
RULE. The court may restrain an actual, apprehended or continuing contravention of the Act on the application of ASIC or a person whose interests have been, are or would be affected, being a person affected beyond the interest of an ordinary member of the public (s 1324(1); Broken Hill Pty v Bell Resources). Creditors can qualify (Allen v Atalay).
- Specific standing recognitions (s 1324(1A)): creditors where insolvency is involved, and creditors or members where a buy-back, capital reduction or financial assistance prejudices the ability to pay creditors.
- For capital transactions the onus reverses. The contravention is presumed unless the contrary is proved (s 1324(1B)).
- Damages may be ordered in substitution for or in addition to an injunction (s 1324(10)), but the prevailing though contested view is that this cannot be used to outflank the civil penalty regime, whose remedies are a complete code enforceable by ASIC (Mesenberg; McCracken). Allow for the opposite argument.
Critical pitfalls and counter-arguments
Trap. No recovery of reflective loss. A fall in share value merely reflecting the company's loss is the company's claim, not the member's. The personal route cannot smuggle in a derivative loss. If the loss is derivative, go to leave under Pt 2F.1A.
Trap. Classify the amendment first. Students who ran the deferential track missed the onus reversal. Conversely, do not apply the exceptional-purpose test to an amendment that touches no proprietary right.
Trap. Collateral purpose. Good faith under (b) fails where the action's real object is leverage in another dispute (Swansson). But a current shareholder seeking to restore the company's property will usually pass, because their interest in share value aligns with the company's recovery.
Trap. The derivative action is a procedure, not a remedy. The relief flows to the company. If the member wants out at fair value, oppression under Pt 2F.1 is the better vehicle, and examiners reward saying so. The 2023 report praised answers that saw the oppression remedy could itself authorise proceedings in the company's name (s 233(1)).
Trap. "Contrary to the interests of the members as a whole" is a distinct, narrower limb (s 232(d)). It is keyed to conduct against the membership generally, typically overlapping with directors' duty breaches. Run both limbs where the facts allow, and note the overlap cuts both ways. If s 232(d) is engaged, the directors' duties probably are too.
Trap. s 467(4) is the sting. Where some other remedy is available and the applicant acts unreasonably in seeking winding up instead, the court must refuse the order. The stronger answers explained why under s 467(4). Where oppression relief (a buyout) is available, winding up a solvent company is nearly always unreasonable.
Trap. Answer the paragraph asked. The 2023 question was confined to paragraph (k), and the report warned that "other paragraphs of s 461(1) were not relevant". Where the question is open, note that (e), (f) and (g) mirror oppression but the Pt 2F.1 remedy is more flexible, so (k) is the live ground.
Exam calibration. This module usually runs as the enforcement tail of a duties question: what can the member actually do.. The scoping is aggressive ("steps to bring proceedings", "under s 461(1)(k)") and the examiners' reports repeatedly punish generality. Lead with the remedy selector, answer only what is asked, and connect the tail to the substantive breach established earlier in the problem.
Take it to the practice bank
This module is drilled in the Corporations Law practice bank. Every problem there carries a realistic Pass answer, an H1 model answer, and an examiner's comment explaining the decisive fact and where the marks are lost.
Practice prompts
- Take any duties fact pattern and write the opening remedy-selector paragraph: name the self-help options, then classify the wrong as the company's or the member's before choosing a vehicle.
- Draft a Gambotto analysis of an expropriation amendment: classify the amendment, state who bears the onus, then run proper purpose and both limbs of fairness on the facts.
- Write out the five s 237(2) criteria from memory and, against a set of facts, one sentence per criterion saying whether leave must be granted.
- Take an exclusion-from-management scenario and argue oppression through the reasonable director standard in Wayde, then choose the least intrusive relief under s 233.
- Write the s 467(4) paragraph explaining why a solvent quasi-partnership will not be wound up where a buyout is available, even with deadlock made out.
Check your understanding
Auto-marked drills. Answer, then see the authority in the feedback.