The standard of appellate review for decisions under s 237(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is that stated in Warren v Coombes, not House v The King, because the judicial task under s 237(2) is evaluative rather than discretionary. The prospects of success of a proposed derivative action may be considered under s 237(2)(c) (best interests) notwithstanding a finding of a serious question to be tried under s 237(2)(d), provided there is no inconsistency between the two findings. An applicant for leave under s 237 who offers a costs indemnity must lead evidence of financial capacity to meet the indemnity. The availability of oppression proceedings under s 233 seeking substantially similar relief may negate substantial injustice from refusal of leave to bring derivative proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.