Corporate Oppression in a 50/50 Private Equity Structure: When “Serious Misconduct” Termination Becomes a Control Grab, Can the Court Order a Forced Buy-Out That Pierces Through Companies Into Limited Partnership Interests?

:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (NSD 310 of 2025), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Court of Australia (General Division), New South Wales Registry

Presiding Judge: Jackman J

Cause of Action: Oppression claim under s 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); contractual claims (employment and shareholders’ deed); cross-vested winding up application concerning a limited partnership on the just and equitable ground

Judgment Date: 13 June 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Corporate oppression

Keyword 3: 50/50 deadlock

Keyword 4: Private equity fund governance

Keyword 5: Serious misconduct termination

Keyword 6: Forced buy-out and valuation

Background (No Result Revealed Yet)

This case arose from the collapse of a joint venture in a venture capital and private equity business. Two corporate vehicles held the managerial and general partner functions for two limited partnerships that formed the fund structure. The venture was effectively a 50/50 arrangement at the company level, with each side controlling one director position. When the relationship soured, one side attempted to remove the other from employment, corporate boards, and fund management by invoking “serious misconduct” and then pushing through a rapid series of written resolutions across interconnected entities. The dispute required the Court to determine whether those steps were legally effective, whether the conduct amounted to oppression, and what remedy was required to restore commercial fairness without overreaching.

Core Disputes and Claims

The legal focus was not simply whether there was conflict. The Court had to determine:

1. Whether the purported termination of the Second Plaintiff’s employment for “serious misconduct” was valid, given that the contract allowed termination only if the company formed an opinion of serious misconduct within the bounds of reasonableness.

2. Whether the knock-on consequences claimed to flow from termination—vacating directorships, triggering default events, excluding the Plaintiffs from management—were legally effective.

3. Whether the Defendants’ conduct in managing the affairs of the corporate entities was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly discriminatory to the First Plaintiff within s 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

4. Whether and how oppression relief under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) could reach through a private equity structure where the economic reality sat partly in limited partnerships (which are not themselves subject to the oppression provisions in the same way as companies).

Relief sought by the Plaintiffs included declarations, injunctive restraints, and a buy-out remedy to resolve the irretrievable breakdown. The Defendants sought to justify the termination and control measures, and advanced steps (including a winding up application relating to a limited partnership) designed to change governance and management control.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

This dispute began as many private equity partnerships do: with ambition, capital, and complementary skills.

The business structure was sophisticated but commercially common in private equity:

• Two companies operated as the fund’s controlling corporate layer, each owned 50/50 by the parties’ respective corporate vehicles.
• Two limited partnerships formed the fund layer, with a general partner and manager function that could only operate through the corporate entities.

At the practical level, the venture depended on consensus. A 50/50 board works when the parties trust each other and share the same commercial vision. When that trust breaks, the structure can become a trap: neither party can move forward without the other, and each has incentives to seize “control levers” hidden in documents—employment termination provisions, default clauses, board vacancy mechanics, written resolutions, and re-appointment powers.

The relationship deteriorated through escalating tensions about strategy and governance:

• Strategic disagreement emerged about whether the fund would raise external capital or operate as a private capital vehicle.
• Governance stress intensified around portfolio company decision-making and reputational risk.
• The conflict became personal and operational when employment termination was used as a mechanism to alter control.

The decisive shift occurred when the Defendants used an alleged “serious misconduct” basis to terminate employment and then sought to treat that termination as a domino that knocked out directorships, voting power, and ultimately the Plaintiffs’ capacity to participate in management. From there, the dispute escalated into rapid structural manoeuvres across the fund entities, including written resolutions and a winding up application relating to the limited partnership layer.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s (Plaintiffs’) Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Constituent documents establishing governance and rights:

• Shareholders’ deed governing the two companies, including board composition and management objectives.
• Executive employment agreement with a “serious misconduct” termination clause requiring an opinion formed by the company.
• Limited partnership deeds establishing the general partner and manager roles and written resolution mechanisms.
• Management agreement governing the manager’s appointment and removal.

1. Contemporaneous documents showing motive and process:

• Emails around strategic disputes and governance standards.
• File notes prepared shortly after key meetings that recorded statements and exchanges.
• Communications showing attempted replacement of management and removal from roles.
• Records of written resolutions passed across entities in close sequence.

1. Witness evidence as to credibility, governance, and commercial purpose:

• Evidence from the Second Plaintiff and supporting witnesses, accepted as credible in material respects.
• Evidence from external witnesses (including potential investors), treated as credible.
• Critiques of Defendant witness credibility, including evasiveness and inconsistency.

Core argument: termination for serious misconduct was a pretext used to exclude the Plaintiffs and seize control; the follow-on governance actions were oppressive and contrary to the interests of members as a whole.

Respondent’s (Defendants’) Main Evidence and Arguments

1. “Serious misconduct” justification:

The Defendants relied on multiple particulars (ultimately nine) said to justify forming the opinion that the Second Plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, including allegations about:

• misuse of information acquired in another directorship context;
• mishandling staff matters;
• alleged misrepresentations and failures in administration and compliance;
• alleged performance failures and competency issues in deal and capital raising activities.

1. Structural validity of resolutions:

The Defendants argued that the written resolutions affecting limited partnerships and manager/general partner positions were valid exercises of powers under the partnership deeds and the management agreement, including reliance on definitions of “insolvency event” triggered by winding up proceedings or resolutions.

1. Opposition to oppression relief reaching partnership interests:

The Defendants contended that oppression relief under ss 232–233 applies to companies, not limited partnerships, and should not be used to compel transfers of partnership interests.

Core Dispute Points

1. Reasonableness of the “serious misconduct” opinion: Was the company’s opinion so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have formed it, applying Wednesbury-style constraints?

2. Legal effect of termination: Did termination validly vacate offices and trigger default mechanisms?

3. Validity and character of the resolutions: Which were legally effective on their own terms, and which were tainted by invalid assumptions or oppressive purpose?

4. Oppression threshold: Did the conduct, viewed commercially and contextually, meet s 232?

5. Remedy reach: Can s 233 orders be fashioned to deal with a fund structure where economic interests sit in both companies and limited partnership interests?

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits in this proceeding performed two functions at once: they were evidentiary vehicles, and they were strategic maps.

From the Plaintiffs’ side, affidavit evidence was used to:

• reconstruct a coherent chronology grounded in contemporaneous records;
• show governance-based objections as principled and consistent, rather than obstructive;
• demonstrate that the employment termination and subsequent resolutions were part of a connected plan to exclude.

From the Defendants’ side, affidavits were used to:

• frame the Second Plaintiff’s conduct as cumulatively undermining confidence and viability;
• present administrative shortcomings as “critical failures” rather than inadvertent governance errors;
• justify rapid structural changes as protective steps for the fund, rather than retaliatory power moves.

A key analytical feature in the reasons was the Court’s comparison of narrative reliability:

• the Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ primary witness evidence as clear, direct, and supported by file notes made shortly after events;
• the Court rejected significant parts of the Defendants’ central witness account as evasive, inconsistent, or implausible.

Strategic Intent in Procedural Directions

Where the Court directs affidavit structure and sequencing in disputes like this, the practical objective is to force parties to pin themselves to a case theory early: what was decided, by whom, under what power, and with what contemporaneous proof. In oppression matters involving a 50/50 structure, the Court also needs affidavits to answer a specific forensic question: is this a genuine business judgment dispute, or an exclusion strategy dressed up as governance enforcement?

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final judgment, the Court made procedural and protective arrangements designed to preserve the status quo and prevent irreversible corporate steps being taken while the merits were determined. These included:

1. Restraints preventing the Defendants from acting on the purported removal of the Second Plaintiff as a director of the corporate entities.

2. Directions for expedited preparation, given the operational urgency of fund control and portfolio governance.

3. Case management steps to confine disputed issues, including the staging of valuation and pecuniary remedies for later determination.

4. Orders facilitating pleading amendments while isolating contested receiver-type relief.

The practical message is that in control disputes, early injunctive relief often becomes the difference between a litigated remedy with real value and a judgment that arrives after the commercial position has already been irreversibly altered.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing unfolded as an evidentiary confrontation between two competing explanations:

• The Plaintiffs said the termination and resolutions were a connected exclusion plan.
• The Defendants said they were reasonable protective steps responding to serious misconduct and governance failures.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

Cross-examination in a case like this is about pressure-testing motive and plausibility.

The Court’s reasons show repeated moments where testimony broke under the weight of internal inconsistency:

• Assertions that key decisions were based on principled governance were challenged against contemporaneous file notes and email traffic indicating a more personal objective: removing an obstacle to preferred commercial outcomes.
• Claims that misconduct particulars justified termination were tested against whether any reasonable employer could hold that opinion on the evidence, rather than whether minor errors existed.

An important forensic pattern emerged: the Defendants’ case required the Court to accept that a cluster of governance imperfections, business disagreements, and disputed perceptions could reasonably be elevated into “serious misconduct” justifying immediate termination. The Plaintiffs’ case invited a different framing: that the alleged particulars were assembled after the fact to justify a termination driven by a strategic objective.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence clusters included:

1. Contemporaneous file notes recording key conversations around the termination event.

2. The sequence and timing of structural resolutions, passed within minutes of each other, which effectively attempted to replace control across the fund structure.

3. Documentary material demonstrating that the “serious misconduct” case relied on allegations that, when examined closely, either were not established factually or did not rationally reach the threshold required.

4. Credibility findings: the Court’s preference for Plaintiffs’ evidence where it conflicted with Defendant evidence, particularly where documentary records supported the Plaintiffs’ account.

Judicial Reasoning (With Judicial Original Quotation Principle)

The Court treated the “serious misconduct” clause as conferring a discretionary opinion power constrained by reasonableness. It was not enough for the Defendants to identify criticisms; the question was whether the opinion reached was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have formed it.

“In short, the answer to this question is ‘no’ … no reasonable person could have formed the opinion that the director engaged in serious misconduct.”

This statement was determinative because it collapsed the foundation of the exclusion strategy. If the termination was invalid, the claimed automatic consequences—board vacancy, removal rights, default triggers—lost their legal footing. From there, the connected resolutions and management exclusion measures were evaluated in the broader oppression frame.

The Court also found that the termination was not a neutral contractual enforcement step but functionally an attempt to eliminate a governance obstacle.

“Excluding [the other side] from management and decision-making … was the very object [intended] to achieve.”

This mattered because oppression is evaluated in a commercial and relational context. When the object is exclusion in a 50/50 venture, the conduct more readily satisfies the unfairness element that oppression jurisprudence is designed to address.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made declarations and orders that, in substance, restored the Plaintiffs’ legal position and imposed a pathway to commercial finality through a compulsory buy-out.

Key outcomes included:

1. Declaration that the Second Plaintiff remains employed as Managing Director of the First Defendant.

2. Declaration that the conduct of the affairs of the First and Second Defendants was contrary to the interests of members as a whole and oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to, and unfairly discriminatory against the First Plaintiff.

3. Declarations of breach:

• breach of the Executive Employment Agreement by the First Defendant;
• breach of the Shareholders’ Deed by the Third Defendant (as identified in the reasons).

1. Orders under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) requiring a compulsory purchase:

• an order that the Fourth Defendant purchase, and the First Plaintiff transfer, the First Plaintiff’s shares in the two corporate entities at a price to be determined by the Court;
• an order that the Fourth Defendant or, at its election, the Third Defendant purchase, and the Second Plaintiff transfer, her partnership interest as a limited partner in the limited partnership entity, at a price to be determined.

1. Directions that pricing determination be conducted by reference to the fund structure as at 31 March 2025, with valuation date yet to be determined.

2. Directions that quantification of pecuniary remedies for the contractual breaches be heard together with valuation issues.

3. Restraints preventing reliance on and enforcement of a specified clause in the Shareholders’ Deed against the Plaintiffs.

4. Procedural orders for amendment of pleadings, stand-over, and case management, including reserving costs and addressing the adjourned winding up proceeding for the limited partnership.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case has unusual jurisprudential value because it confronts a recurring modern problem in private equity governance: the real business sits in layered entities, but oppression law attaches to companies. The Court’s reasoning recognises that where limited partnerships can only act through corporate general partners and managers, the “affairs” of the company are not hermetically sealed from the partnership layer. The decision shows a workable doctrinal path: oppression relief can be shaped to address the economic reality of the structure where the company’s affairs include the management and control of the partnerships.

The case is also notable for how it polices the misuse of “serious misconduct” clauses in governance disputes. In founder-style ventures, “termination for cause” can become a weapon to trigger cascading control consequences. The Court’s approach makes clear that when the contract requires an opinion, the opinion is not beyond review; it is constrained by reasonableness. That is a critical warning for boards attempting to use subjective opinion clauses as a shield for exclusion.

Finally, the decision demonstrates an evidence-driven model for courts faced with a narrative battle. The judgment is explicit about credibility, documentary corroboration, and the careful deconstruction of post-hoc allegations. In practical terms, it teaches litigators that oppression cases often turn on who can prove motive and sequence with contemporaneous records, not who can express greater indignation in the witness box.

Judgment Points

1. Opinion clauses do not create an unreviewable discretion.

The employment contract permitted termination if, in the company’s opinion, conduct amounted to serious misconduct. The Court treated that as an opinion constrained by reasonableness, applying a Wednesbury-style standard. The legal consequence is profound: “opinion” does not mean “whatever the controller says it is”.

1. Cumulative allegations cannot save a fundamentally unreasonable conclusion.

The Defendants attempted to rely on a pattern or cumulative conduct. The Court accepted that cumulative behaviour can amount to serious misconduct in principle, but still held that, across the relied-upon particulars, the opinion could not reasonably be formed. The analytical lesson is that accumulation does not turn low-grade criticisms into serious misconduct if the evaluative leap is irrational.

1. Corporate governance arguments are not “window dressing” when the risk environment is real.

A key factual driver was a dispute about governance standards in a portfolio context with regulatory and reputational exposure. The Court accepted the stance advocating due process and legal advice as commendable, rather than obstructive. In modern private equity, governance process is itself a commercial asset because it preserves investee value and reduces regulatory shock.

1. Timing and sequence are probative of purpose.

The Court examined the close timing of steps: termination, exclusion from systems and offices, replacement efforts, and rapid resolutions across entities. The pattern supported a finding that the object was exclusion and control, rather than measured risk management.

1. Oppression analysis must match the economic reality of the structure.

The oppression provisions apply to companies, but the Court recognised that the companies’ affairs included managing the limited partnerships because those partnerships could only act through the corporate entities. This reasoning has wider significance for private equity structures where “control” is exercised via corporate roles even when returns flow through partnerships.

1. Relief under s 233 is remedial, not punitive, but must be commercially effective.

The Court emphasised that the purpose is to alleviate consequences of oppression and no more. Yet effectiveness matters: in a collapsed 50/50 structure, a buy-out remedy is often the only realistic cure because forcing parties to co-manage after a breakdown is commercially sterile.

1. Compulsory purchase can extend to partnership interests where required “in relation to the company”.

The remedy logic reached beyond shares to include a forced transfer of limited partnership interests. The Court treated that as sufficiently connected to the corporate affairs in this structure, because the partnership interests were intertwined with the companies’ management and economic rights.

1. Credibility findings can be outcome-determinative in governance disputes.

Where witness credibility differs sharply, the Court will prefer the account supported by contemporaneous records and candid concessions. In these disputes, credibility is not a side issue; it is often the engine that drives findings on purpose and reasonableness.

Legal Basis

The key legal scaffolding included:

1. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232

This is the statutory gateway. The Plaintiffs had to show that conduct of the company’s affairs was:

• contrary to the interests of members as a whole; or
• oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly discriminatory.

1. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 233

This empowers the Court to make orders to remedy oppression, including buy-out orders and other remedial directions crafted to relieve the consequences of oppressive conduct.

1. The employment law “serious misconduct” concept and the reasonableness constraint on opinion formation

The Court treated “serious misconduct” as requiring a fundamental breakdown in the employment relationship and treated the “opinion” as constrained by Wednesbury-style reasonableness. In other words, the decision-maker must act reasonably; the opinion must not be one that no reasonable person could form.

1. The partnership and management deed provisions enabling written resolutions and removal appointments

These provisions mattered not only for validity analysis but for understanding how control could be moved through paper resolutions in minutes, which in turn fed into the oppression analysis.

Evidence Chain

The “Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions” logic can be understood through the following linked chain:

1. Evidence of breakdown and control contest:

• 50/50 shareholding and two-director board composition; dependence on consensus.
• Documentary evidence of strategic conflict.

1. Evidence undermining serious misconduct justification:

• Particulars relied upon either not established or insufficiently serious.
• Contemporaneous materials and credibility findings undermined Defendant narrative.

1. Evidence of exclusion purpose and effect:

• Termination event and immediate asserted consequences.
• Exclusion from management systems and office access.
• Rapid interlocking resolutions aimed at replacing management and general partner functions.

1. Statutory characterisation:

• These steps, in context, were conduct of the companies’ affairs that unfairly prejudiced the 50% shareholder, satisfying s 232.

1. Remedy fit:

• Because the relationship was irretrievably broken and the structure was interdependent, buy-out was the most practical relief under s 233.

Judicial Original Quotation

The judgment contains sharp, case-decisive statements about reasonableness and purpose.

“The question is therefore whether the opinion … is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have formed it.”

This was determinative because it set the evaluative standard: the case was not decided by whether criticisms existed, but by whether the termination decision could rationally be made on those criticisms.

“I do not regard [the key Defendant] as a reliable or credible witness.”

This mattered because once credibility failed, the scaffolding for several “particulars” collapsed, and the Court’s preferred narrative became the foundation for oppression findings.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Defendants’ failure was not merely evidentiary; it was structural.

1. Overreach in characterising governance imperfections as “serious misconduct”

The Defendants sought to elevate administrative oversights and disputed commercial judgments into serious misconduct. The Court treated many of these matters as inadvertence, normal governance imperfection, or ordinary disagreement. The attempt to frame them as gross misconduct lacked proportionality and plausibility.

1. Failure to ground termination in a reasonable decision-making process

Even where an opinion clause exists, a termination decision must be one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The Defendants’ position effectively required the Court to accept a conclusion unsupported by a rational chain from facts to threshold.

1. Tactical sequencing that revealed purpose

Rapid, interlocking resolutions across entities, combined with the timing relative to termination and litigation steps, looked less like risk management and more like a control seizure. In oppression analysis, the Court assesses commercial unfairness in context, and the pattern here was damaging.

1. Credibility damage as a decisive weakness

The Court’s adverse credibility findings meant the Defendants could not carry contested versions of key conversations and motivations, especially where the Plaintiffs had contemporaneous notes and corroboration.

1. Remedy inevitability once oppression was established

Once the Court found oppression in a 50/50 structure with irretrievable breakdown, buy-out relief became the natural commercially effective solution. The Defendants’ litigation posture made it difficult to credibly argue for any remedy short of separation.

Key to Victory

The Plaintiffs’ victory was built on:

1. Contemporaneous documentation: file notes and email chains that anchored motive, sequence, and governance stance.

2. Credible witness performance: clear, direct answers, supported recollection, and candid concessions.

3. A coherent theory of the case: termination was not an isolated contract dispute but a mechanism to achieve exclusion and control.

4. A remedy narrative tied to structure: the Plaintiffs did not merely allege unfairness; they showed why buy-out relief needed to reflect the economic reality of the company-partnership structure.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

1. Wayde v New South Wales Rugby League [1985] HCA 68; (1985) 180 CLR 459

Ratio focus: oppression involves evaluative judgment of commercial unfairness; not every unfair act is oppression, but conduct that departs from standards of fair dealing in corporate membership contexts can qualify.

1. Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; (2009) 238 CLR 304

Ratio focus: oppression relief is remedial; the Court fashions orders to cure consequences of oppressive conduct, with emphasis on the justice of the case and the nature of the parties’ relationship.

1. Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360

Ratio focus: in small, quasi-partnership style corporate ventures, exclusion from participation in management and loss of mutual confidence can justify equitable intervention; while not an Australian oppression case under the Corporations Act, it remains influential in understanding relational fairness and breakdown contexts.

Implications

1. In a 50/50 venture, governance is not a luxury—governance is survival.

When the relationship is healthy, governance feels like paperwork. When the relationship breaks, governance becomes the rulebook that decides who can act, who is locked out, and whether the business can be saved.

1. “Serious misconduct” clauses are not a free pass.

If a contract requires an opinion, the opinion must be one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. Treating termination as a shortcut to control can expose the decision-maker to findings of invalidity, breach, and oppression.

1. Keep contemporaneous records like your future depends on them, because sometimes it does.

A short file note written straight after a meeting can carry more weight than a polished affidavit drafted months later. Courts trust what looks like truth captured in real time.

1. Private equity structures do not immunise unfairness.

Layering companies and limited partnerships does not prevent a court from seeing the commercial reality. If the company’s affairs include controlling the partnerships, remedies can be designed to match that reality.

1. The goal of oppression relief is not revenge. It is repair.

The court’s remedy is designed to relieve consequences and restore commercial fairness. In a broken 50/50 venture, that often means one party must buy the other out so the enterprise can function again.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a contract says “in the company’s opinion”, does that mean the company can terminate whenever it wants?

A1: No. Where the contract requires the company to form an opinion about serious misconduct, the Court can examine whether that opinion was formed within the bounds of reasonableness. If the opinion is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have formed it, the termination can be held invalid.

Q2: Can oppression law apply where the real money and control sit in limited partnerships?

A2: The oppression provisions apply directly to companies, but where the companies’ affairs include managing and controlling the partnerships, the Court can treat partnership management as part of the company’s affairs for oppression analysis. The practical question is whether the company is the mechanism through which partnership control is exercised.

Q3: Why does the Court often order a buy-out instead of telling the parties to work it out?

A3: In a 50/50 deadlock with irretrievable breakdown, forcing ongoing co-management is usually commercially unworkable. A buy-out order under s 233 can be the most effective way to end oppression consequences and enable the business to function under stable control.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Corporate Oppression in a 50/50 Closely Held Private Equity Venture, involving company control and fund governance through limited partnerships

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (with valuation and pecuniary quantification deferred to a subsequent hearing)

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

The following standards are for reference only. Outcomes tend to be determined by the precise documents, conduct, and contemporaneous evidence in each case.

Core Test A: Contract Formation (Commercial Context)

Step 1: Identify whether the four essential elements are present:

1. Offer: Was there a clear proposal capable of acceptance?

2. Acceptance: Was there an unequivocal assent to the offer, communicated in a legally effective manner?

3. Consideration: Was something of value promised or exchanged, even if nominal?

4. Intention to create legal relations: In commercial contexts, intention tends to be presumed unless clearly rebutted.

Step 2: Identify the governing instrument hierarchy:

• Entire agreement clauses often shape what pre-contract negotiations can be relied upon.
• Transaction documents may be interdependent and must be read as a coherent commercial scheme.

Step 3: Identify whether “opinion” clauses require constraints:

• If the contract condition is triggered by a party’s “opinion”, the opinion tends to be constrained by reasonableness, particularly where it affects rights in a way that could be exploited for strategic exclusion.

Core Test B: Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Misleading or Deceptive Conduct)

Although not the central cause of action here, s 18 principles can become relevant in closely held venture disputes where representations are used to induce structural changes.

Step 1: Identify conduct in trade or commerce.

Step 2: Identify representation or silence:

• What was said, promised, or implied?
• Was there omission of key information that tends to mislead?

Step 3: Materiality and reliance:

• Did the other party rely on the conduct?
• Was reliance reasonable in the circumstances?

Step 4: Causation and loss:

• Did the conduct cause loss, or a change in position?

In private equity structures, representations about governance, control rights, or capital strategy tend to be treated as highly material.

Core Test C: Unconscionable Conduct (Commercial Equity Overlay)

Step 1: Identify “special disadvantage”:

Examples can include urgent need, informational asymmetry, dependency, vulnerability, or inability to protect one’s interests.

Step 2: Identify exploitation:

Did one party knowingly take advantage of the disadvantage to procure a transaction or structural outcome against good conscience?

Step 3: Consider the totality:

Unconscionability is assessed by examining the whole course of conduct and whether, viewed as a whole, it departs from acceptable commercial standards.

In 50/50 ventures, unconscionability arguments tend to be stronger where one party engineers technical triggers to confiscate control or value in a way that the parties’ relational expectations would not support.

Additional Core Test (Directly Relevant in Substance): Corporate Oppression under s 232

This is included because it is the actual statutory backbone of disputes of this kind.

Step 1: Identify “conduct of the company’s affairs”:

This includes board actions, management exclusion, enforcement of shareholder deed mechanisms, and the use of corporate powers to influence connected entities where the company is the control mechanism.

Step 2: Identify the commercial context:

• Is this a closely held or quasi-partnership venture?
• Is there an expectation of participation in management?
• Is there 50/50 deadlock risk and reliance on mutual confidence?

Step 3: Identify unfairness:

Oppression tends to be determined by whether conduct is commercially unfair, including:

• exclusion from management contrary to legitimate expectations;
• using powers for an improper purpose to entrench control;
• depriving a shareholder of fair value or participation through tactical manoeuvres.

Step 4: Causation and remedy fit:

Relief under s 233 is shaped to remove consequences of oppressive conduct and tends to be tailored to restore fairness without punishing beyond necessity.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In disputes like this, parties often explore alternative paths when statutory avenues are contested or incomplete. These routes are for consideration only and tend to depend on the precise evidence.

Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel

Step 1: Identify a clear and unequivocal promise or representation:

For example, assurances about continued participation in management, profit distribution, or future buy-out arrangements.

Step 2: Reliance:

Did the relying party act on the promise by committing resources, changing position, or foregoing alternatives?

Step 3: Detriment:

Would the relying party suffer detriment if the promisor resiles?

Step 4: Unconscionability:

Would it be against conscience to permit the promisor to depart from the representation?

Potential practical use: Where formal documents are incomplete or control expectations were created by conduct, estoppel may support relief that protects reliance interests.

Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust

Step 1: Identify a benefit received:

Money, labour, intellectual property, deal origination value, or contributions that increased enterprise value.

Step 2: Identify expense:

Was the benefit obtained at the other party’s expense?

Step 3: Unconscionability or injustice:

Is it against conscience for the recipient to retain the benefit without compensation?

Potential practical use: In venture disputes where one side attempts to seize value through control levers, constructive trust or restitutionary claims may be explored, especially where contributions are clear and the retention of value would be unjust.

Procedural Fairness (Contextual Analogy)

While procedural fairness is classically a public law concept, private governance disputes can involve a parallel fairness logic: whether decision-making was conducted with transparency, proper notice, an opportunity to respond, and without predetermination. This is not a substitute for statutory tests, but it can be persuasive when assessing reasonableness and oppression in context.

Ancillary Claims Pathway

If a contractual termination claim is contested, parties may consider:

• breach of directors’ duties in decision-making (where applicable);
• breach of shareholders’ deed obligations to act to implement the agreed management structure;
• injunctions to preserve corporate control pending final determination.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. Oppression threshold:

Conduct must be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly discriminatory, or contrary to members’ interests as a whole. The threshold tends to be fact-sensitive and contextual.

1. Injunctive urgency threshold:

Interlocutory relief tends to depend on whether the applicant can show a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo, particularly where irreversible control changes are threatened.

1. Valuation and buy-out threshold:

Where a buy-out is sought, the Court tends to examine whether separation is the only practical cure and whether valuation can be conducted fairly without rewarding oppressive conduct.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial)

1. Relief reaching beyond the company layer:

Where the company’s affairs include control and management of partnerships, exceptional relief can be crafted to make the remedy commercially effective, rather than formally limited to share transfers that do not cure the real problem.

1. Temporary restraints despite complex structures:

Even where multiple entities are involved, courts can impose restraints to prevent rapid paper-based control shifts that would hollow out later final relief.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the structure is complex. Carefully map who controls what through which document, because the “control lever” is often the decisive fact.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:

This authority is particularly useful in submissions involving:

• corporate oppression in closely held ventures with 50/50 deadlock;
• misuse of “for cause” termination to trigger governance displacement;
• remedy design in private equity structures involving companies and limited partnerships.

Citation Method:

As Positive Support:

When your matter involves a 50/50 structure where one side uses contractual triggers and paper resolutions to exclude the other from management, this authority can strengthen arguments that the Court will look to commercial reality and can fashion buy-out remedies to cure oppression consequences.

As a Distinguishing Reference:

If the opposing party cites this case, you may distinguish by emphasising:

• absence of contemporaneous evidence of exclusion purpose;
• a genuinely reasonable and documented decision-making process supporting any termination opinion;
• a structure where the company’s affairs do not practically include partnership control in the same way.

Anonymisation Rule:

In narrative and submissions, parties should be referred to using procedural titles such as Plaintiff / Defendant (or Applicant / Respondent depending on the jurisdictional header). Avoid personal naming where anonymity is required by policy or publication practice.

---

Conclusion

This case shows how quickly a governance dispute becomes a value dispute when a “serious misconduct” termination is used as a lever to seize control in a 50/50 venture. The Court’s remedy logic focuses on one central idea: oppression relief must be commercially effective and must cure consequences, especially where the structure is designed so that control of the company determines control of the fund.

Golden Sentence:

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.