Mum died and relationships between her children eroded.
Some (but not all) children were executors. Some (but not all) were directors of a Co, the shares in which were the chief asset of the estate.
The Co had a substantial landholding which was being subdivided. Disputes arose. The plaintiffs commenced oppression proceedings seeking new directors.
They failed entirely.
Without proving a “permanent director” power was misused, an irregular appointment was not oppressive: [52]
One child (who controlled one P) was bankrupt when shares were to be transferred. He said that he couldn’t hold shares as trustee; a position which “may or may not be correct”: [60]
The shares were eventually transferred and no harm was done. This irregularity (esp when he had not told the executors he was bankrupt) was not oppressive: [61].
Refusal to give access to books can be oppressive [69] but not in this case: [74]
The Ps (until a late, rejected amendment application) did not seek a wind up and pressed for the appointment of their preferred directors: [90] and [95]
The Court considered this relief may create a “reverse oppression”, as the new directors would exclude the interests of the former directors: [91] and [94]
