SCA Provides Clarity on the Requirements Needed for the Court to Grant Remedial Action for Oppressive and Unfair Conduct in Terms of Section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 - Parry v Dunn-Blatch [2024] ZASCA 19

The “oppression remedy”, while having arguably undergone substantial legislative development over time, has long been a contentious issue for South African courts. The use of this remedy allows shareholders or directors to challenge, and seek relief from, certain acts or omissions they believe are oppressive or unfairly prejudicial, or that unfairly disregard their interests. In Parry v Dunn-Blatch ([2024] ZASCA 19), the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to consider whether the act or omission envisaged in section 163(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the 2008 Act) had taken place as alleged by the applicant. The decision of the SCA in Parry v Dunn-Blatch (supra) is important as the court provided much-needed clarity as to what will be required by an applicant who wishes to bring a successful application for use of the remedy found in section 163 of the 2008 Act.