Dee and Kay were in a de facto relationship that broke down. They each held 50% of the issued shares in KayDee Pty Lid. Dee was the only director of the company. Kay has discovered that Dee has diverted a profitable contract that should have been undertaken by KayDee to another company in which Dee is the sole director and shareholder, DeeDee Pty Ltd. Required: Explain Kay's rights as a shareholder to pursue an oppression remedy in relation to the diverted contract and the likely outcome of Kay pursuing these rights