Thank you for walking me through the legislation. Could you please go into a bit of detail in regards to arguments that could support the argument, the countervailing argument that oppressive discriminatory behaviour does not include: simply feeling sullen that he got outvote, the director's may argue that the resolution was in the company's best fiscal interes.

What other aspects of the problem question should indicate that George Brush is completely justified in falling under s232 corporations Act ?

Directors must always act in the best interests of the company and could we argue that the replaceable rules do not permit his being treated in that way?

Thank you very much

Could U also please explain to me again in very simple language (this subject is not my forte !) what exactly is his problem again or the problem the crux of this scenario so that I can then try and find case law to back my argument. Could I find cases that are based on oppressive changes to the company constitution with this for example?

Thank you so much