Glenn Andrew Lees and ORS (according to the Schedule) v Connective Services Pty Ltd (ACN 107 366 496) and ORS (according to the Schedule)

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had granted leave to the respondents to amend their pleadings to add a closely related claim in a derivative proceeding. The applicants contended that the respondents should have obtained leave under section 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to introduce a new cause of action. The respondents argued that leave under section 241 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was sufficient and that the applicants had not demonstrated substantial injustice warranting leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the application for leave to appeal the grant of leave to amend the pleadings was properly refused. The legal issues included whether the applicants were required to obtain leave under section 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to introduce a new cause of action, and whether the primary judge had made an error in granting leave under section 241 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Court found that the applicants had not established that the primary judge had erred in granting leave to amend the pleadings under section 241 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Court held that the application for leave to amend the pleadings must be considered in the context of Part 2F.1A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and that no limitation should be implied in the legislative grant of power to the Court. The Court held that the primary judge had not failed to have regard to a relevant matter, and that the application for leave to appeal should be refused. The Court applied the decision in The Owners of The Ship ‘Shin Kobe Maru’ v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404, and distinguished the decision in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal the order granting leave to amend the pleadings. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal.