Wigmans v AMP Limited [2021] HCA 7

Wigmans v AMP Limited [2021] HCA 7

The power to stay proceedings under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) is not confined by a rule or presumption favouring the first-in-time representative action. The consideration of litigation funding arrangements is permitted and relevant, among other factors, to determine which proceeding best serves the interests of group members. There is no mandatory rule that the earliest filed proceeding must proceed; the exercise of the stay power should follow a multifactorial assessment aligning with the dictates of justice and case management objects.

Parties
Appellant: Marion Antoinette Wigmans; Respondent: AMP Limited; Respondent: Komlotex Pty Ltd; Respondent: Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings, Class Actions, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Representative Proceedings Stay of Proceedings Class Actions Litigation Funding

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Antoinette Wigmans

Appellant

AMP Limited

Respondent

Komlotex Pty Ltd

Respondent

Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Supreme Court's power to grant a stay of competing representative proceedings confined by a rule or presumption that the proceeding first in time is to be preferred?
  2. 2 Can litigation funding arrangements be a relevant consideration under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)?
  3. 3 Did the Supreme Court err in considering litigation funding arrangements for stay applications in competing representative actions?

Ratio Decidendi

The power to stay proceedings under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) is not confined by a rule or presumption favouring the first-in-time representative action. The consideration of litigation funding arrangements is permitted and relevant, among other factors, to determine which proceeding best serves the interests of group members. There is no mandatory rule that the earliest filed proceeding must proceed; the exercise of the stay power should follow a multifactorial assessment aligning with the dictates of justice and case management objects.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal to this Court