Resolution Life Australasia Limited v AMP Limited; Munich Reinsurance Company of Australasia Limited v AMP Limited

Resolution Life Australasia Limited (RLA) and Munich Reinsurance Company of Australasia Limited (Munich) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against interlocutory orders made by a primary judge. The dispute concerned RLA's cross-claim against AMP Limited and others, and Munich's claim against AMP Limited and others. The primary judge had refused RLA leave to amend its statement of claim and had struck out parts of RLA's cross-claim.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to amend the statement of claim and in striking out parts of the cross-claim. Specifically, the court had to determine whether RLA's proposed amended pleading established an arguable causal connection between the alleged contravening conduct and the loss suffered, as required by section 55(3) of the *Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993* (Cth). The court also considered whether the questions raised by the appeal were reasonably arguable and whether the refusal of leave to amend would cause injustice.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the primary judge had applied too strict a test in assessing the causal connection required by section 55(3) of the SIS Act. The court held that a pleading need only demonstrate an arguable causal connection, not a definitively proven one at the pleading stage. The court found that RLA's proposed amended statement of claim did plead material facts that established an arguable causal connection between the contravening conduct and the loss. Consequently, the court concluded that leave to amend should have been granted and that striking out parts of the cross-claim was premature.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the primary judge's orders refusing leave to amend and striking out parts of the cross-claim, and in lieu granted RLA leave to file a further amended statement of claim. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the motions in the primary court and the costs of the appeals in the Court of Appeal.