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

  • Equal ownership and shareholder oppression risks

    Equal ownership and shareholder oppression risks

    Case of Cody v Live Board Holdings Limited [2014] NSWSC 78 shows need for precise drafting of Shareholders’ Agreements and Constitutions to comply with Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and remove any inconsistencies between documents and ensure Directors’ actions are clear.

    Read more …

  • Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs

    Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs

    This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.

    Read more …

  • Company wound up under s461K for failing to achieve its objectives?

    Company wound up under s461K for failing to achieve its objectives?

    The NSW Supreme Court case of Gearhouse provides insight into the Court’s power to wind up a company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A combination of circumstances, including deadlock between shareholders, loss of confidence in management and an expired agreement, can lead to winding up.

    Read more …

  • Shareholder’s inspection allowed despite distrust

    Shareholder’s inspection allowed despite distrust

    Drafting Share Vesting Agreement requires consideration of several factors, including securities, copyright, class of shares, taxation, congruence with other agreements, and Events of Default. Alternatives to incremental vesting and requirements of Redeemable Preference Shares. Care must be taken when drafting Events of Default/Forfeiture clauses.

    Read more …

  • Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs

    Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs

    This article explores the legal framework of shareholder oppression and identifies early warning signs to look out for when starting a new venture, such as entity type, relationship with advisors, exclusion from management, access to info and non-flexible negotiation.

    Read more …

  • Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression

    Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression

    Discontinuing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia can be costly, as the default position is that the discontinuing party pays the other party’s costs. However, the Court has discretion to award costs and may consider the parties’ conduct and reasons for discontinuance.

    Read more …

  • Shareholders’ agreements & deadlock clauses

    Shareholders’ agreements & deadlock clauses

    Deadlock Clauses in Shareholders’ Agreements can prevent shareholder oppression. Learn about different types of clauses, dispute resolution provisions and financial implications. Read on to find out more.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    What exactly is a section 293 direction?

    There are several reasons why a shareholder may require financial information, primarily they are denied access to the ‘accounts’ so as to make informed decision about the company.  The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides various mechanisms for shareholders to obtain financial and accounting information about a company, to allow them to access full and…

    Read more …

  • Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive

    This article explores shareholder oppression, examining Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Martin v Australian Squash Club Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 452, to understand the cumulative effect of individual acts.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend