You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

A falling-out between business partners or the members of a company can be as stressful as the break-up of a marriage. Often the parties have been in a long-standing business relationship and the business accounts for their whole livelihood.

The break-up of the relationship in those circumstances can be catastrophic. Fortunately, in many cases, the law provides avenues for relief.

Oppressive conduct

A company’s affairs might be being conducted in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against another member or members. Alternatively, the conduct complained of might be contrary to the interests of the members as a whole. In such cases, the Court has the power under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) to grant the aggrieved member(s) a remedy for oppressive conduct.

The key to obtaining relief is that the conduct must be “unfair”. Determining whether conduct is unfairness involves taking into account the objects of the Company, the policy of the Act and the interests of the shareholders generally.

The conduct complained of could be a one-off incident or omission, or might be a continuing course of conduct. It does not matter that the conduct has ceased at the time that an application for relief is made. However, the Court will not provide a remedy merely for members who disagree with management decisions made by the board of directors.

If it is satisfied that conduct by or on behalf of the company has been oppressive, the Court may make such order or orders as it thinks fit. Such order(s) could include:

  1. winding the company up;
  2. modifying or repealing the company’s constitution;
  3. regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs in the future;
  4. ordering the purchase or sale of shares;
  5. appointing a receiver or receiver and manager of the company’s property;
  6. restraining a person from engaging in specified conduct;
  7. requiring a person to do a specified act.

Winding up on other grounds

A member or members of a company may also apply to the Court under section 461 of the Act to have the company wound up on “just and equitable” grounds. The Court can exercise this power in a number of situations, including where:

  1. the directors have acted in the affairs of the company in their own interests or in a manner that is unfair or unjust to other members; or
  2. the affairs of the company are being conducted in an oppressive manner.

Section 232 and 461 of the Act therefore provide potential avenues for determining otherwise unresolvable disputes between company members.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Liar loans: how mortgage brokers are putting clients at risk

The term ‘liar loans’ has been coined on the back of the Banking Royal Commission. This is because studies have shown almost 40 per cent of loan applications completed through mortgage brokers contained at least one factually incorrect statement. Whether mortgage brokers are providing lenders with incorrect information, or information that is out-of-date, they are putting themselves – and their clients – at risk. A recent study conducted by the Consumer Credit Legal Centre in New South Wales identified some mortgage brokers were breaking the law when filling out loan applications for their clients. Common examples included brokers suggesting their clients provide a different answer...

Planning desk close up documentresize
Consumer and the Law
How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acts as the middleperson between financial firms and consumers or small businesses, offering free and independent dispute resolution services. It deals with complaints about financial advice, insurance, banking and superannuation products and services. While the time limit to lodge a complaint to AFCA is usually between two and six years, the Australian Government recently created the opportunity for those with complaints up to 10 years old to come forward. This means consumers and small businesses have until 30 June 2020 to lodge complaints dating back to 1 January 2008. To lodge a complaint, you must follow AFCA’s process. It is...

How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Business Law
Proposed Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

Franchising is big business in Australia, with approximately 1,120 franchise systems and 79,000 franchise units operating nationally1. As franchising is a diverse sector with characteristics that are unique from other business models, franchises are governed by a mandatory Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code).2 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently completed an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code and has released the Fairness in Franchising Report (Report).3 Some of the key findings and recommendations of the report are discussed below. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an...

Waitress In Black Apron Upload

We're here to help. Make an enquiry now.

If you have a question, want some more information or would just like to speak to someone, make an enquiry now to arrange a consultation for just $660 (including GST). Our Employment Law team will be in touch with you as soon as possible.

Call us on 1800 444 141