-
Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case
The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1] Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…
-
Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels
The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…
-
Coercive control and shareholder oppression
The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code). This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…
-
Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?
On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay). Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…
-
Accountant liability in shareholder oppression cases
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) imposes liability on directors where they engage in shareholder oppression.[1] While this is a director’s duty, third parties may also be held liable for the actions of a director or company where they were involved in the oppressive conduct. Internal and external accountants of a company can and…
-
Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232. These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders. While primarily…
-
Can a ‘commercial purpose’ excuse shareholder oppression?
On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay). Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…
-
Shareholder oppression in Groves v Tas Fumigation
On 1 September 2025, the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Daniel Groves v Tas Fumigation and Pest Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] FCA 1089 (Groves v Tas Fumigation). Groves v Tas Fumigation involved allegations of oppressive company conduct and considered the consequences of ongoing failures of defendants to…
-
Shareholder oppression – the importance of evidence
The recent Federal Court case of Sharif v Vitruvian Investments PL (No 3) [2023] FCA 920 (Vitruvian Investments) involved allegations of shareholder oppression by Mr Walid Sharif (Mr Sharif/Plaintiff) against Mr Jonathan Gregory (Mr Gregory/Second Defendant), the sole director of Vitruvian Investments Pty Ltd ACN 630 548 846 (Vitruvian/First Defendant).
Shareholder oppression
Make an enquiry
