shareholder oppression

Director’s absolute right to access company’s financial records

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

A director of a company has both a common law and statutory right to access all “financial records” “at all reasonable times” in order to discharge their fiduciary duties.  The law is clear the right is absolute and unequivocal.

The statutory rights of a director to access financial records are contained in the following sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act):

Section 290(1) provides:

  • A director of a company, registered scheme or disclosing entity has a right of access to the financial records at all reasonable times.

 Section 290(2) provides that a director can make an application to Court to authorise a person to inspect the financial records on the director’s behalf.

Case law interpreting section 290 of the Act

One of the common issues in matters involving shareholder oppression is where access to the company’s financial records is restricted or limited.  Read our article on early warning signs of shareholder oppression.  For this reason, it is rare that an application to Court is made purely based solely on section 290.

In Hammond v Quayeyeware Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 293 (Hammond v Quayeyeware) an application was made by Linda Hammond (Hammond) seeking declarations that she be given  to access the company’s financial records.  A secondary issue was whether Hammond was able to obtain access to company’s invoices and retainer agreements relating to prior proceedings that may have been subject to legal professional privilege.

A useful analysis of the right of access to company documents was conducted by Banks-Smith J at paragraph 113 of Hammond v Quayeyeware where there was a discussion of:

  • the directors statutory right of access as contained in section 290;
  • the meaning of financial records as defined in section 9; and
  • section 1303 of the Act that gives the Court the power to compel compliance with section 290.

Relevantly two (2) competing principles were stated as follows:

It is not necessary for a director to itemise and request particular documents by a particular name: ‘What should happen, when documents are demanded by a director, is that the gate is opened wide and the director has full and unfettered access at all reasonable times’ (at [23])[1]; and

[7] The Applicant is clearly entitled to access and to inspect the records of the companies, but in a way that is reasonable in all of the circumstances, and also bearing in mind the context in which the access and inspection is being carried out”.[2]

The issue for the Court in exercising its discretion is to balance the two (2) competing tensions of the absolute right to information versus the reasonableness in the circumstances.

Factors against the Court exercising its discretion include:

where it is proved that a director is acting or is about to act in breach of his fiduciary duty to the company and intends to aid that process by inspecting the books, then his right to inspection disappears (at 163).

In the New Zealand case of Berlei Hestia (NZ) Ltd v Fernyhough [1980] 2 NZLR 150, Mahon J considered the statutory right of directors and concluded that the right of access is not a right of a director, but rather a power to be exercised when necessary.  However, if that power was corrupted, Australian Metropolitan Life Assurance Co Ltd v Ure [1923] HCA 29; (1923) 33 CLR 199 at 219 (Isaacs J) the onus of establishing that the power or discretion has been used for an improper purpose lies on the person who asserts the right to it.

This NZ judgment was endorsed by Finkelstein J in 2004 with respect to s290 of the Corporations Act in the case of Tai-Ao Aluminium (Australia) Pty Ltd v Cordukes [2004] FCA 1488 at [2].

Takeaways about directors right to financial records

Directors generally have the statutory ‘power’ to access all financial records of a company on request.  They do not have to provide reasons or any justification, particularly where there is no suggestion that the documents will be used for an improper purpose.  For further information about director’s right information, see the following video:

Links and further references about shareholder oppression

Legislation

Corporation Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases

Australian Metropolitan Life Assurance Co Ltd v Ure [1923] HCA 29; (1923) 33 CLR 199

Berlei Hestia (NZ) Ltd v Fernyhough [1980] 2 NZLR 150

Hammond v Quayeyeware Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 293 (30 March 2021)

Tai-Ao Aluminium (Australia) Pty Ltd v Cordukes [2004] FCA 1488

Further information about shareholder oppression

If you need advice on a director’s right to information, or shareholder oppression, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Banks-Smith J in Hammond v Quayeyeware Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 293 at para 117, citing Fox v Gadsden Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 748.

[2] Banks-Smith J in Hammond v Quayeyeware Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 293 at para 118, citing Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 1316 per Palmer J.


Related insights about shareholder oppression

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    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…

    Read more …

  • Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?

    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…

    Read more …

  • Accountant liability in shareholder oppression cases

    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…

    Read more …

  • Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies

    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…

    Read more …

  • Can a ‘commercial purpose’ excuse shareholder oppression?

    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…

    Read more …

  • Shareholder oppression in Groves v Tas Fumigation

    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…

    Read more …

  • Shareholder oppression – the importance of evidence

    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). 

    Read more …

  • Cancellation of shares held to be oppressive

    Cancellation of shares held to be oppressive

    Shareholder oppression occurs when those who control a company use their power in a way that unfairly harms or takes advantage of other (usually minority) shareholders.  The Federal Court case of Sharif v Vitruvian Investments PL (No 3) [2023] FCA 920 (Vitruvian Investments) involved a shareholder oppression dispute between Mr Walid Sharif (Mr Sharif/Plaintiff) and…

    Read more …

  • Shareholders’ rights to inspect books under s 247A Corporations Act

    Shareholders’ rights to inspect books under s 247A Corporations Act

    A shareholder of a company can apply to the Court seeking an order that it be provided with access to the company’s books and records under certain circumstances, provided that the shareholder is acting in good faith and seeking inspection for a proper purpose.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend