Perera v GetSwift Limited [2018] FCA 732

Perera v GetSwift Limited [2018] FCA 732

Continuation of multiple duplicative open class actions would be an abuse of process, contrary to the efficient administration of justice and the protective function of class actions. A comparative multifactorial assessment found the Webb proceeding, with its funding structure linking commission to costs and proposals for cost control, would achieve greater returns for group members and better serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, permanent stays of Perera and McTaggart proceedings were ordered, with Webb proceeding to continue as the sole open class action. Ancillary orders enable group members of stayed actions to apply under s 33T if adequacy of representation is in issue.

Parties
Applicant: Dwayne Cavan Shanahan Perera; First Respondent: GetSwift Ltd; Second Respondent: Joel Macdonald; First Applicant: Shaun McTaggart; Second Applicant: Samantha McTaggart; Third Respondent: Bane Hunter; Applicant: Raffaele Webb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings (class Action) / Disposition on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Competing Class Actions, Case Management
Outcome
Permanent stay of two proceedings (Perera and McTaggart); Webb proceeding continues as single open class.
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Class Actions, Litigation Funding, Abuse of Process, Common Fund Orders, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Equity Representative Proceedings Class Actions Litigation Funding Abuse of Process Common Fund Orders +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dwayne Cavan Shanahan Perera

Applicant

GetSwift Ltd

First Respondent

Joel Macdonald

Second Respondent

Shaun McTaggart

First Applicant

Samantha McTaggart

Second Applicant

Bane Hunter

Third Respondent

Raffaele Webb

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceedings (class Action) / Disposition on Interlocutory Applications Regarding Competing Class Actions, Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the Federal Court respond to competing open securities class actions against the same respondent?
  2. 2 Do duplicative class actions amount to an abuse of process?
  3. 3 Should permanent stays, declassing, or equitable injunctions be issued to regulate multiplicity?

Ratio Decidendi

Continuation of multiple duplicative open class actions would be an abuse of process, contrary to the efficient administration of justice and the protective function of class actions. A comparative multifactorial assessment found the Webb proceeding, with its funding structure linking commission to costs and proposals for cost control, would achieve greater returns for group members and better serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, permanent stays of Perera and McTaggart proceedings were ordered, with Webb proceeding to continue as the sole open class action. Ancillary orders enable group members of stayed actions to apply under s 33T if adequacy of representation is in issue.

Court Disposition

Permanent stay of two proceedings (Perera and McTaggart); Webb proceeding continues as single open class.

Orders

  • NSD 226/2018 (Perera): This proceeding be permanently stayed. Stay does not prevent applicant making and moving any application under s 33T in NSD 580/2018 if applicant contends Webb cannot adequately represent group members, including failure to comply with security for costs.
  • NSD 440/2018 (McTaggart): This proceeding be permanently stayed. Stay does not prevent applicants making and moving any application under s 33T in NSD 580/2018 regarding adequacy of Webb's representation, including failure to comply with security for costs.