A shareholder holding 45% of the company was the person behind the research and development of the company and resigned due to a dispute between the shareholders. He passed the physical material he had (drawings, plans, etc.) and even expressed willingness to conduct an orderly transfer of the knowhow but demanded payment for the time while control holders demanded that this will be done free of charge. The controlling shareholders (55%) appealed to the Court claiming oppression and moved the Court for temporary relief that would prohibit the minority shareholder from working for competitors and oblige him to transfer the knowhow.
The Court rejected the motion and stated that although a control holder may raise a claim of oppression by the minority, the burden of proof would be heavier. Refusal to pay for work of the minority nullifies a contention of oppression by the minority. In addition, there is no justification to impose a wide injunction prohibiting to work for any competitor of the Company, which may substantially damage the minority shareholder while the controlling shareholders did not shown that the minority intends to compete.