The Ultimate Guide to Shareholder Agreements in Australia (2025)

In Australian corporate law, a Shareholder Agreement is a critical private contract that serves as a detailed blueprint for how a company is run and how the owners relate to one another. While the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and a company’s Constitution provide a basic legal framework, a Shareholder Agreement fills the crucial gaps, anticipating future challenges and providing clear, customised rules of engagement. It is an indispensable tool for protecting shareholder interests, ensuring stable governance, and preventing costly disputes.

Why Your Company Needs a Shareholder Agreement: Beyond the Constitution

Many business owners assume their company’s Constitution is sufficient. However, a Constitution is a public document that often contains generic provisions. The relationship between a company’s Constitution and its members is defined as a statutory contract under s 140 of the Corporations Act 2001, but it lacks the detail needed to govern the complex, private arrangements between shareholders.

A Shareholder Agreement is a confidential contract that sits alongside the Constitution to address these specific needs. To prevent ambiguity, a well-drafted agreement will always include a supremacy clause, which clarifies that if a conflict arises between the agreement and the Constitution, the terms of the Shareholder Agreement will prevail among the shareholders.

Essential Clauses Every Australian Shareholder Agreement Must Have

A robust Shareholder Agreement proactively manages the most common sources of conflict and operational uncertainty. Here are the cornerstone provisions every agreement should contain.

Governance and Management Control

This clause defines who runs the company. It goes beyond the basic rules in the Corporations Act 2001 to provide contractual certainty.

  • Board Representation: The agreement can guarantee a board seat for specific shareholders (such as founders or major investors), ensuring their voice is heard in strategic decisions.

  • Decision-Making & Veto Rights: It can specify that certain major decisions (e.g., selling key assets, taking on significant debt) require a special majority vote or even unanimous consent, giving minority shareholders crucial protection.

  • Appointment of Key Officers: The process for appointing roles like the Managing Director or CEO can be clearly defined.

Capital, Funding, and Financial Policy

How the company is funded and how profits are used is a frequent point of contention.

  • Future Funding: The agreement should set out the process for raising additional capital. This almost always includes pre-emptive rights, which require the company to offer new shares to existing shareholders first. This protects against the dilution of their ownership stake and reinforces the replaceable rule in s 254D of the Act for proprietary companies.

  • Dividend Policy: The agreement can establish a clear policy for profit distribution, such as mandating that a certain percentage of after-tax profit is distributed to shareholders annually, preventing disputes between those wanting dividends and those favouring reinvestment.

Share Transfers and Exit Strategies

One of the agreement’s most critical functions is controlling who can own shares in the company and how shareholders can exit the business.

  • Pre-emptive Rights on Transfers: This creates a private market, requiring a shareholder who wants to sell their shares to first offer them to the other shareholders on the same terms.

  • “Drag-Along” Rights: This protects the majority. It allows a majority shareholder group selling their shares to a third party to “drag” the minority shareholders along, forcing them to sell their shares on the same terms. This prevents a small minority from blocking a strategic sale of the entire company.

  • “Tag-Along” Rights: This protects the minority. If a majority shareholder sells their stake, this right allows minority shareholders to “tag along” and sell their shares to the third-party buyer on the same terms and price. This prevents them from being left behind with a new, unknown majority partner.

  • Compulsory Transfers: The agreement specifies what happens upon certain trigger events like the death, bankruptcy, or resignation of a shareholder-employee, including a pre-agreed method for valuing their shares.

Deadlock and Dispute Resolution

When co-owners disagree, a business can become paralysed. A multi-tiered dispute resolution clause prevents this by forcing a structured, private process instead of public court action. A typical clause mandates:

  1. Good Faith Negotiation: A period for the parties to resolve the issue themselves.

  2. Mediation: If negotiation fails, a neutral third-party mediator is brought in to facilitate a resolution.

  3. Arbitration or Expert Determination: If mediation fails, the dispute is resolved through a final, binding decision by a private arbitrator or an appointed expert.

Shareholder Agreements and Directors’ Duties in Australia

It is a critical legal principle that a Shareholder Agreement cannot override the statutory duties that directors owe to the company. Directors must always act in the best interests of the company as a whole. Key duties enshrined in the Corporations Act 2001 include:

  • The duty to exercise care and diligence (s 180).

  • The duty to act in good faith and for a proper purpose (s 181).

While these duties are paramount, an agreement can provide procedural clarity. For instance, in a proprietary company, it can align with the replaceable rule in s 194 by confirming that a director with a material personal interest need only disclose it to the board, not to all shareholders.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What’s the difference between a shareholder agreement and a company constitution?

A constitution is a public document that sets out the basic rules for the company. A shareholder agreement is a private, detailed contract between the shareholders that governs their specific rights and obligations, including exit strategies and dispute resolution. In a conflict, a supremacy clause ensures the shareholder agreement prevails.

Is a shareholder agreement legally binding?

Yes. A properly executed Shareholder Agreement is a legally binding contract between the parties who sign it (the shareholders and often the company itself). Its terms are enforceable in court.

When should a company create a shareholder agreement?

Ideally, a shareholder agreement should be put in place at the very beginning of the business venture, when all parties are aligned. Creating one later, especially when disagreements have already emerged, is significantly more difficult.

What happens if there is no shareholder agreement?

Without a shareholder agreement, disputes are governed by the generic provisions of the company’s Constitution and the Corporations Act 2001. This often leads to uncertainty, costly legal battles, and outcomes that no party desires, such as a court-ordered winding up of the company.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. The content is based on the Corporations Act 2001 and associated annotations current to mid-2025.

Get Expert Legal Advice

Navigating the complexities of corporate governance and shareholder agreements requires expert legal guidance. If you are establishing a new company, reviewing your existing governance framework, or require assistance with amending your shareholder agreement, our team of corporate law specialists can provide tailored advice. Contact us today to ensure your company’s architectural blueprint is built for success.

Contact us Now to Draft Your Shareholder Agreement?

Draft with confidence: Key Clauses & Expert Answers

How our strategic advice and guidance help clients protect the companies.

Key answers to help you draft your perfect agreement

Shareholder Agreement FAQs

A shareholder agreement is one of the most effective tools for protecting the rights and investment of a minority shareholder. While the Corporations Act 2001 provides some protections against oppressive conduct, a shareholder agreement contractually guarantees rights that a minority shareholder would not otherwise have.

Key protective clauses include:

  • Veto Rights: The agreement can grant minority shareholders the power to veto certain major decisions. This means that actions like selling significant company assets, issuing a large number of new shares, or taking on substantial debt would require their consent, preventing the majority from making transformative decisions without their approval.

  • Tag-Along Rights: This is a critical exit provision. If a majority shareholder decides to sell their shares to a third party, the tag-along clause gives the minority shareholder the right to “tag along” and sell their shares to the same buyer on the same terms and for the same price. This ensures they are not left behind with a new, unknown majority partner.

  • Anti-Dilution (Pre-emptive Rights): To prevent their ownership percentage from being unfairly diluted, the agreement will include pre-emptive rights. As outlined in the replaceable rule in s 254D of the Act, this requires the company to offer any new shares to existing shareholders proportionally before offering them to outside investors.

  • Guaranteed Board Representation: A minority shareholder can be contractually guaranteed a seat on the board of directors, ensuring their perspective is part of the company’s strategic management and giving them access to company information.

Where a conflict arises between the terms of a shareholder agreement and the company’s constitution, a well-drafted shareholder agreement will contain a supremacy clause. This clause explicitly states that the terms of the shareholder agreement shall prevail over the constitution.

Legally, this works as follows: The constitution is a statutory contract between the company and its members under s 140 of the Corporations Act 2001. The shareholder agreement is a separate private contract between the shareholders. The supremacy clause creates a contractual obligation on the shareholders to exercise their voting rights to amend the constitution to resolve the inconsistency.

For example, if the agreement states that a specific director must be appointed, but the constitution has a different procedure, the shareholders are contractually bound by the agreement to vote in a way that aligns the constitution with the agreement’s terms. Failure to do so would be a breach of the shareholder agreement, allowing the aggrieved party to sue for breach of contract.

No, a shareholder agreement cannot legally force a director to vote in a specific way that would breach their duties to the company. This is a fundamental principle of Australian corporate law.

Directors, even those appointed by a specific shareholder, owe their primary legal duties to the company as a whole. The most important of these duties is the duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose, as required by s 181 of the Corporations Act 2001.

An agreement that attempts to “fetter the discretion” of a director—meaning it pre-determines how they must vote on board matters—is generally unenforceable because it would compel the director to prioritise the interests of their appointing shareholder over the interests of the company. A director must always apply their independent judgment to every decision. While shareholders can agree on how they will vote as shareholders (e.g., in a general meeting), they cannot bind a director’s vote at a board meeting.

A “deadlock” occurs when shareholders or directors with equal voting power cannot agree on a critical issue, paralysing the company’s operations. Shareholder agreements are designed to prevent this by including a structured, multi-tiered process for resolution.

Typical deadlock provisions include:

  • Tier 1: Escalation and Negotiation: The dispute is first formally referred to the company’s CEOs or Chairpersons for a set period of good faith negotiation to try and find a commercial solution.

  • Tier 2: Mediation: If negotiation fails, the parties are required to appoint an independent, accredited mediator to help facilitate a resolution. This is a confidential and non-binding process.

  • Tier 3: Buy-Sell or “Shotgun” Clause: If mediation is unsuccessful, a more drastic mechanism is triggered. In a typical “shotgun” clause, one shareholder (Party A) sets a price at which they value the shares. The other shareholder (Party B) then has the choice to either buy Party A’s shares at that price or sell their own shares to Party A at that same price. This mechanism forces a resolution by guaranteeing one party will exit the business.

  • Tier 4: Voluntary Winding Up: As a last resort, if all other mechanisms fail, the agreement may provide for an orderly and voluntary winding up of the company to return capital to the shareholders.

To prevent disputes, a shareholder agreement must clearly define the mechanism for valuing a departing shareholder’s shares. The valuation method often depends on whether the shareholder is a “good leaver” or a “bad leaver”.

Common valuation methods specified in an agreement include:

  • Agreed Formula: The parties agree on a specific formula in advance, such as a multiple of the company’s average annual earnings (EBIT or EBITDA) over a set period. This provides certainty but can become outdated if not reviewed.

  • Independent Expert Valuation: The most common approach is to have the shares valued by a mutually agreed-upon independent expert (such as a chartered accountant specialising in valuations). The agreement will set out the process for selecting the expert and the key principles they must follow. The expert’s decision is typically final and binding.

  • Good Leaver vs. Bad Leaver: The agreement will define these scenarios.

    • A “Good Leaver” (e.g., someone retiring, or leaving due to death or disability) is typically entitled to receive full fair market value for their shares.

    • A “Bad Leaver” (e.g., an employee-shareholder terminated for serious misconduct, or who breaches a non-compete clause) may be forced to sell their shares at a discount to fair market value (e.g., 80% of the valuation) as a punitive measure.

Let us draft your Shareholder Agreement today

Get expert help drafting and advising your companies governing documents

Get Strategic Advice Now