50/50 Shareholder Deadlock: Exit Clauses and What a Court Can Do Without Them

Key Takeaways

• Deadlock is built into a 50/50 structure: a directors' resolution under s 248G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) passes by majority with a casting vote for the chair, but that is a replaceable rule which a 50/50 company can remove. At shareholder level an ordinary resolution needs a majority and a special resolution 75 per cent, so with two equal holders nothing passes unless one side changes its vote.
• A shareholders agreement supplies the exit the Act does not: put and call options, a shotgun clause, a Texas shoot-out or a Dutch auction, usually after notice, escalation, mediation and an independent valuation. In each of these mechanisms the side that can fund a purchase holds the advantage.
• Where the agreement sends price to an independent valuer, the figure binds even if mistaken unless the mistake shows the valuation was not made in accordance with the contract, so the valuation clause itself decides a great deal.
• Without a mechanism the court can wind the company up on the just and equitable ground under s 461(1)(k), even a profitable one, subject to s 467(4), or make oppression orders under s 233 including a buy-out at a court-fixed value, a receiver or a winding up, and can appoint a provisional liquidator under s 472(2) while an application runs.
• Deadlock on its own is not oppression. What usually supplies the oppression is conduct during the stand-off: exclusion, diverted work or the company being run for one side, which is why a written standstill, separate advice and clean records matter from the first refused resolution.

1. 1.What is deadlock, and why does the Act not resolve it?
2. 2.What exits can a shareholders agreement provide?
3. 3.What can a court do when there is no mechanism?
4. 4.What to do now
5. 5.How is a buy-out taxed?
6. 6.Which shareholder you are
7. 7.Frequently Asked Questions

Two shareholders who are also the two directors, each with half the votes, reach a decision neither will give way on. The only tie-breakers in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) are the chair's casting votes in ss 248G and 250E, which are replaceable rules a 50/50 company can remove, and nobody can be made to buy or sell shares without a contract or a court order. Astris Law in Brisbane has set out below what the stand-off is, the exits a shareholders agreement can supply, what a court can do without one and what to do while it lasts.

What is deadlock, and why does the Act not resolve it?

At board level, s 248G provides that a directors' resolution passes by a majority of the votes cast and gives the chair a casting vote. It is a replaceable rule, and a 50/50 company can displace it by removing the casting vote so that neither side controls the board. Once that is done, a one-all vote fails.

The same arithmetic applies to shareholders. An ordinary resolution needs a majority of the votes cast and a special resolution at least 75 per cent, so nothing passes unless one side votes with the other, whether to remove a director, change the constitution or wind the company up voluntarily. The members' casting vote in s 250E is also a replaceable rule. Either shareholder can force a general meeting under s 249D, but s 198A, another replaceable rule, leaves management to the directors unless the constitution says otherwise, and a general meeting that splits 50/50 passes nothing either. Deadlock is a structural problem rather than a legal wrong: on its own it is not oppression and it gives neither side a right to the other's shares.

What exits can a shareholders agreement provide?

A well-drafted agreement usually requires a deadlock notice, a meeting of the principals, a cooling-off period and mediation, with an independent valuation where only price is in issue, before any buy-sell mechanism engages.

Precedents use these labels inconsistently, so the clause itself, not its name, decides which of these mechanisms you have. Where the agreement sends price to an independent valuer, the figure binds even if wrong, unless the mistake shows the valuation was not made in accordance with the contract: Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 314. The clause should say what is valued, at what date, whether any discount applies and who pays. Our guide to shareholder agreements deals with the valuation clause in more detail.

What can a court do when there is no mechanism?

Without an agreed exit, the Act offers two routes. The first is winding up on the just and equitable ground under s 461(1)(k). In Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 426 the only two shareholders and directors stopped speaking and dealt with each other through the company secretary, and the English Court of Appeal wound the company up although it was still making substantial profits. The limit is s 467(4). Where the court is satisfied that the applicants are entitled to relief, by a winding up or otherwise, and that without another remedy a winding up would be just and equitable, it must make the order unless it also finds both that another remedy is available to them and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking a winding up instead of pursuing it. That is why a solvent winding up is usually sought alongside, or after, a buy-out order rather than on its own. Deadlocked two-shareholder companies are still wound up on this ground. A recent example is Kanik, in the matter of ThinkRed Recruitment Central Pty Ltd v Swan Elope Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 462, in which the Federal Court wound up a company whose two shareholders had reached deadlock.

The second route is oppression under s 232 and s 233, explained in our guide to oppression remedies. A 50 per cent holder has standing, but deadlock alone is not enough: the applicant must show conduct of the company's affairs that is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole or oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against a member, judged objectively (Wayde v New South Wales Rugby League Ltd (1985) 180 CLR 459). Exclusion, diverted work or a company run for one side during the stand-off usually supplies it. Section 233(1)(d) allows an order that one member buy the other's shares at a value the court fixes, at a date the court chooses and, where the two of you ran the company as a partnership in all but name, usually without a discount for the holding being only half the company; the date and any discount are matters for the court's discretion. The same section lets the court appoint a receiver or wind the company up. Once an application is filed, s 472(2) allows a provisional liquidator to be appointed before it is decided, and where the deadlock has stopped the company functioning the court can be persuaded to take that serious step.

What to do now

While the stand-off lasts, the following keep the company and your position intact.

• A written standstill keeps the position where it is while talks run: no change to bank signatories, borrowing, asset sales, key contracts or staff, with a pause on any time limits in the agreement.
• The company's lawyer and accountant usually cannot act for one of you against the other, so each side needs its own adviser.
• Directors' duties do not pause for a dispute, and damage done to the business for leverage is what an oppression claim is built from, so the trading has to stay clean.
• A director can inspect the financial records under s 290, and dated notes of what was refused and when matter later.
• The constitution and the agreement are often out of step and need to be read together; our pages on a shareholder dispute and a board dispute cover the first steps.

How is a buy-out taxed?

A buy-out is a disposal of shares and a capital gains tax event for the seller, so a price that looks right across the table can look different after tax. The small business CGT concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) can reduce a gain on shares, but only where the company passes the 80 per cent active asset test and the seller is a CGT concession stakeholder in the company (or, for a corporate or trust shareholder, the 90 per cent stakeholder test is met), among other conditions. Have your accountant model the after-tax position before any mechanism is triggered, because a shotgun price set without it is a guess.

Which shareholder you are

The route through all of this depends on what your agreement says, which of you can raise the money, how the other side has behaved and whether you are the one who means to stay or the one who means to leave. The same shotgun clause serves the shareholder who can fund a purchase and exposes the one who cannot. Only the clause, the bank and the history between the two of you settle which of those positions you hold, and reading them together is work on your company rather than a point a general piece can make. If the stand-off has reached the point where someone is drafting a notice, call Jamie Nuich at Astris Law on (07) 3519 5616 with the agreement and the constitution open and go through what the clause actually allows.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a 50/50 shareholder be forced to sell?

Only under a contract, which includes the company's constitution, or a court order. The contract route is an option, shotgun or shoot-out clause in the shareholders agreement or constitution. The court route is a buy-out order under s 233 where oppression is established.

Is deadlock itself oppression?

No. Section 232 needs conduct that is contrary to the interests of the members as a whole or oppressive to, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against a member, and a tied vote is none of those; conduct during the stand-off usually supplies it.

Can a court wind up a company that is still making money?

Yes. In Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd the company was wound up on the just and equitable ground while still profitable, because its two shareholder directors could no longer work together. Under s 467(4) the court must make the order unless another remedy is available and the applicant is acting unreasonably in pressing for a winding up instead.

Who is better placed under a shotgun clause?

The shareholder who can fund a purchase. The one who receives the notice must buy at the named price or sell at it, so a side that cannot raise the money ends up selling at a figure it did not choose. The same bias runs through a Texas shoot-out and a Dutch auction.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. While we take reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, we make no representations or warranties as to its completeness, currency or reliability. We accept no liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or reliance on, this website's content. You should always seek professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances before acting on any information in this article. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Astris Law is not a registered tax agent and does not provide tax advice. References to tax law in this article describe the legal framework only. For tax advice specific to your circumstances, consult your registered tax agent or accountant.