← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case unfair prejudice s994minority protection

Wayde v NSW Rugby League Ltd

(1985) 180 CLR 459
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year1985
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Australian High Court held that the oppression remedy is available where majority shareholders act in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to minority shareholders.

Key Principle

oppression remedy; majority shareholders owe duties not to act oppressively towards minorities

Area of Law

company

Related Cases

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 465

A company secretary is an 'officer' under the Corporations Act and owes a duty of care and diligence under s 180 in performing their functions.

Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 157

Directors of an insolvent company owe duties to creditors, and bank claims may be subordinated where unconscionable conduct is established in dealings with the insolvent company.

Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258

The standard of care under s 180 of the Corporations Act is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, having regard to the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Wayde v NSW Rugby League Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Wayde v NSW Rugby League Ltd