This article discusses relevant Australian case law with reference to the oppressive remedy in company law. In South Africa, only shareholders who are entered in the shareholders’ register can make use of the remedy, contrary to the Australian application. The Australian case law explains the locus standi of shareholders who are not entered in the register. Reference is also made to South Africa's previous Companies Act 1973 due to the Smyth v Investec appeal court case, where the court applied the principles, relevant to an oppressive remedy under the 1973 act. In this regard, the appeal court's reasoning is compared to that of the Australian court; possible new perspectives relevant to South Africa's new Companies Act 2008 are also discussed. The Australian perspective is included to facilitate investigation of a South African court's approach to oppressive conduct concerning the narrow interpretation of “shareholder”. It is concluded that “shareholder” should also be interpreted to include a beneficial shareholder.

本文参考公司法中的压迫性补救措施，讨论了相关的澳大利亚判例法。在南非，与澳大利亚的申请相反，只有登记在股东名册中的股东才能使用该救济。澳大利亚判例法解释了发言权谁没有在登记册股东。由于Smyth诉Investec案，也参考了南非以前的1973年《公司法》在法院适用原则的情况下与1973年法案所规定的压迫性补救有关的上诉法院案件。在这方面，将上诉法院的推理与澳大利亚法院的推理进行了比较；还讨论了与南非新的《 2008年公司法》有关的可能的新观点。包括澳大利亚的观点是为了便于调查南非法院关于“股东”的狭义解释所采取的压迫行为的方法。结论是，“股东”也应解释为包括实益股东。