Where majority takes action beyond their power, it is for improper purpose. (some actions breaching equitable limitation
might even cause oppression on minority, ch2E)
Cases NOT involving
amendment of constitution
Majority use voting power to
take away company property
Menier V Hooper's Telegraph
Works (p.184)
Majority use voting power to
prevent being sued by company
Baila Pty Ltd v Mallina Holdings
Ltd (No2). (p.184)
Cases involving amendment of
constitution (member approval
required s136) Gambotto v WCP Ltd
(p.186)
Category 1:
Amendments to allow
expropriation of shares
or valuable rights
Requirement 1:
Proper purpose
Minority SH
competing with
company
Necessary to comply
with legal
requirements
Enhance commercial interests not
proper purpose but is company
purpose
Requirement 1:
Company
purpose.
Requirement 2:
Fair and no
oppression
Procedural Fairness
➢ Fully disclose all
relevant information
regarding amendment
(purpose, why alternatives
not adopted). ➢ Obtain
and disclose an
independent expert’s
valuation of shares to be
expropriated.
Substantive
Fairness: ➢Price of
shares to be
expropriated must be
fair.
Category 2: Other
amendments involving
'conflict of interest'.
Gambotto DOES NOT apply to
Selective capital reductions carried
out in accordance with statutory
requirements (Winpar Holdings Ltd
v Goldfields Kalgoorie Ltd) OR a
Scheme of arrangement carried out
in accordance with statutory
requirements since statute already
provides protecting to minority SH.