EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 613

Lindsay v Qld Childcare Centres

A Federal Court case about a childcare business, shareholder oppression proceedings and appointment of a trustee to sell co-owned business...

Federal Court of Australia18 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • If a business operates from land owned personally by shareholders or related parties, do not rely on everyone continuing to get along.
  • A Federal Court case about a childcare business, shareholder oppression proceedings and appointment of a trustee to sell co-owned business premises.

Use this to check

  • Business premises owned by shareholders personally can become separate from the company dispute.
  • A company operating on related-party land should have secure written tenure.
  • Co-owners may have strong rights to seek sale of the property even during an oppression case.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Qld Childcare Centres Pty Ltd operated the Biloela Early Learning Centre from a property at 4 Heaton Street, Biloela.
    • The childcare business was run through a corporate trustee and family trust structure, while the land itself was co-owned by Mr Lindsay and members of the Hawkins family.
    • The underlying proceeding was a shareholder oppression dispute.
    • Mr Lindsay originally sought orders requiring the majority shareholders to buy his shares, but later sought to acquire their shares.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Court had to decide whether to appoint a trustee for sale of co-owned Queensland property in the context of a shareholder oppression proceeding, whether the property sale would undermine the plaintiff's proposed oppression remedies, and whether it was just and fair to require the trustee to sell the land together with the childcare business.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court appointed David Hambleton of Rodgers Reidy as trustee for sale of the Biloela property.
    • The trustee was given flexibility to sell the property alone or together with the Biloela Early Learning Centre business, but the Court refused to impose the requested limitation requiring the business and property to be sold together.
    • Co-owners were allowed to make offers, ancillary sale orders were made, and the parties were to be heard on costs.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • If a business operates from land owned personally by shareholders or related parties, do not rely on everyone continuing to get along.
  • Put tenure, sale rights, business-sale mechanics and valuation consequences into documents before a shareholder dispute makes the premises part of the fight.

Useful next steps

  • Business premises owned by shareholders personally can become separate from the company dispute.
  • A company operating on related-party land should have secure written tenure.
  • Co-owners may have strong rights to seek sale of the property even during an oppression case.
  • If business and land are meant to be sold together, that expectation should be documented.
  • Give the operating company a written lease or licence if it trades from shareholder-owned land.

Practical read

This case is useful for family businesses, childcare operators, hospitality businesses and clinics that operate from premises owned by founders, shareholders or family members. The business and the land were connected commercially, but legally they were not the same thing.

The Court appointed a trustee for sale of the property. It did not force the trustee to sell the childcare business and property together, even though the majority owners wanted that. The Court treated the co-owners' property rights as the focus of the sale application. The shareholder oppression dispute could continue, but it did not stop the property-sale mechanism.

The lesson for business owners is to document premises control before a dispute. If the operating company needs secure access to the premises, use a lease or licence. If shareholders expect the business and land to be sold together, say so in a shareholders agreement, unit holders agreement or property co-ownership deed. Otherwise, a property fight can move faster than the business dispute.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Give the operating company a written lease or licence if it trades from shareholder-owned land.
  • Separate ownership of the business, land, trust units and shares in the documents.
  • Include sale-deadlock and valuation rules for business premises in co-owner agreements.
  • Check whether a property sale could affect share value before starting oppression litigation.
  • Avoid assuming a company dispute will stop co-owners exercising property-sale rights.

Key takeaways

  • Business premises owned by shareholders personally can become separate from the company dispute.
  • A company operating on related-party land should have secure written tenure.
  • Co-owners may have strong rights to seek sale of the property even during an oppression case.
  • If business and land are meant to be sold together, that expectation should be documented.

Related topics

Companies & StartupsContracts & CommercialCommercial Leases & Property

How Sprintlaw can help

Shareholders AgreementCommercial Lease ReviewCompany Set Up