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

(2025) 173 ACSR 289; [2025] NSWCA 21

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Civil Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Strike out application
4. › Whether pleading has tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay
5. › Whether material facts plead arguable causal connection
6. › Whether pleading merely asserts conclusion from unstated facts
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28(1)(a), 14.28(1)(b)
1. Civil Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Amendment application
4. › Refusal of leave to amend statement of claim
5. › Whether proposed amendment proper as to substance
6. › Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 58, 64
1. Superannuation
2. › Trustee obligations
3. › Statutory covenants
4. › Recovery of loss or damage for contravention of covenant
5. › Causal requirement in s 55(3)
6. › Whether s 55(3) to be read as compound expression requiring causal connection between contravening conduct and loss
7. › Whether literal construction arguable
8. › Whether constructional choice suitable for summary determination
9. › Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth), ss 52, 54B(1), 54C(1), 55(3)
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Pleading dispute
5. › Whether substantial injustice
6. › Whether questions reasonably arguable
7. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(e)

Quick Take

The causal requirement in s 55(3) of the SIS Act — whether it requires a causal connection between the contravening conduct specifically and the loss, or merely between conduct having the character of a contravention and the loss — is a debateable point unsuitable for summary determination, and claims by non-member participants in the superannuation system (such as insurers and reinsurers) under s 55(3) are at least arguable and should not be struck out.