Skip to main content
FCAFederal Court of Australia · 28 October 2015

the Applicant v Rigging Rentals WA Pty Ltd

Citation: [2015] FCA 1158

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant, Clifford McGillivray, and Craig Sweetapple were shareholders in Rigging Rentals WA Pty Ltd (the Company). They initially worked with Lifting by Design Pty Ltd. In 2014, McGillivray and Sweetapple demanded the Applicant consent to the allotment of additional shares to them, which would reduce his shareholding to 25%. This demand was made via email and linked to negotiations for selling the company. the Applicant’s employment ended shortly after, and he sought relief under the Corporations Act alleging oppression. The Company cross-claimed for breach of duties by the Applicant.

What was decided

The Federal Court found that the share allotment demands constituted oppressive conduct. Clifford McGillivray and Craig Sweetapple were ordered to pay the Applicant $300,000 each for delivery of written share transfer documents. The Company was ordered to pay the Applicant $36,740, while the Applicant paid the Company $11,927.18. The court acknowledged a market value of $1,800,000 for the company and $600,000 for one-third of the Applicant’s shares as at November 2014. Costs were to be agreed upon by the parties.

What it means for employers

Employers should ensure fair treatment of shareholders and avoid demands that could be perceived as oppressive. Any changes in shareholdings or management control need to be communicated transparently and with consideration for existing shareholder rights. The court's decision highlights the potential legal consequences of actions impacting a shareholder’s position.

What it means for employees

Employees who are also shareholders have recourse under the Corporations Act if they experience oppressive conduct from other shareholders. It is important to document any demands or agreements related to shareholdings and seek legal advice if feeling unfairly treated.

Want this applied to your situation?

Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionsredressunderpaymentsham-contractingmodern-award-variationenterprise-agreementlong-service-leave

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca1158

Want more cases like this?

FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.

FairWork Mate AI

This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.

Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.

Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

Get notified on new Fair Work cases

Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.

Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections

All cases