Wigmans v AMP LimitedCitation:[2021] HCA 7Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:10 Mar 2021Case Number:S67/2020Read more
The Supreme Court is not bound by a first-in-time rule when considering whether to stay representative proceedings and may consider litigation funding arrangements as part of a multifactorial approach under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
- Parties
- Representative Plaintiff: [Not Provided]; Defendant: [Not Provided]
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Representative Action / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Representative Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings, Litigation Funding, Abuse of Process
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
[Not Provided]
Representative Plaintiff
[Not Provided]
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Representative Action / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court's power to grant a stay is confined by a rule or presumption that the first-in-time representative proceeding is to be preferred
- 2 Whether litigation funding arrangements are a relevant consideration under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
- 3 Whether the Supreme Court erred in considering litigation funding arrangements
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court is not bound by a first-in-time rule when considering whether to stay representative proceedings and may consider litigation funding arrangements as part of a multifactorial approach under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The Supreme Court's decision is affirmed
- The stay applications are determined according to the multifactorial approach
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment