Wigmans v AMP Ltd; Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd v AMP; Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd; Georgiou v AMP Ltd; Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2019] NSWSC 603

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wigmans v AMP Ltd; Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd v AMP; Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd; Georgiou v AMP Ltd; Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2019] NSWSC 603 Hearing dates: 6 and 7 December 2018 Date of orders: 23 May 2019 Decision date: 23 May 2019 Before: Ward CJ in Eq Decision: (1) Pursuant to r 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), order that proceeding 2018/310118 (the Komlotex proceeding) be consolidated with proceeding 2018/309329 (the Fernbrook proceeding) and that the consolidated proceeding be known as Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Limited (Consolidated proceeding). (2) Order that the plaintiff in the Komlotex proceeding and the plaintiff in the Fernbrook proceeding (together, the joint plaintiffs) be, respectively, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff in the Consolidated proceeding. (3) Order that the joint plaintiffs be represented by one firm of solicitors (being, until further order, the current solicitors for the plaintiff in the Komlotex proceeding, Maurice Blackburn). (4) Order that the costs to date of each of the Komlotex proceeding and the Fernbrook proceeding be treated as costs in the Consolidated proceeding. (5) Order that the joint plaintiffs have liberty to seek, on any application for approval of a settlement of the Consolidated proceeding or for approval of costs following judgment, orders for approval of the costs referred to in order 4 above. (6) Subject to the payment into Court on behalf of the joint plaintiffs of the sum of $5 million as security for the defendant's costs (without prejudice to the defendant's ability from time to time to seek the provision of further security) order, pursuant to s 67 and s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and in the inherent power of the Court, that the following proceedings be permanently stayed: (i) 2018/00145792 (Wigmans v AMP Limited); (ii) 2018/310082 (Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited); and (iii) 2018/310103 (Andrew Georgiou v AMP Limited). (7) Reserve the question of the costs of the various motions brought by the plaintiffs in each of the proceedings referred to in order 6 above and the costs of the plaintiff in the Komlotex proceeding in respect of its notices of motion seeking a stay of the proceedings referred to in order 6 above; with a view to dealing with the question of costs on the papers. (8) Liberty to apply on 48 hours' notice. Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING – CIVIL PROCEDURE – multiplicity of proceedings – whether commencement of subsequent proceedings an abuse of process – application of case management principles – consideration of relevant factors to determine what is in best interest of overall group members Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-58, 67, 162, 166, 171, 173, 183 and Pt 10 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1337P Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 79(1), 91 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 33N and 33ZF Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 28.5 Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Richards [2013] FCAFC 89 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27 Blairgowrie Trading Ltd v Allco Finance Group Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2017] FCA 330, (2017) 343 ALR 476 Branir Pty Ltd v Wallco Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2006] NTSC 70; (2006) 203 FLR 115 Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1602 Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 35 Cantor v Audi Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1042 Commissioner of State Revenue v Aidlaw Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] VSC 405 Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (2002) 122 FCR 168; [2002] FCA 957 Darwalla Milling Company Pty Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1388 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21 Hassid v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater [2017] NSWSC 599 Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; [1996] HCA 51 Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122; [2014] HCA 29 Inabu Pty Ltd v Leighton Holdings Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCA 911 Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd v SST Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 75; [2009] HCA 43 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 56; (1999) ATPR 41-679 King v AG of Australia Holdings Ltd [2002] FCA 1560 Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 6) [2012] FCA 650 Lidden Composite Buyers Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 560; (1996) 139 ALR 549 Locking v Armtec Infrastructure Inc 2013 ONSC 331 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305 McKay Super Solutions Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Bellamy's Australia Ltd [2017] FCA 947 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd (2017) 53 VR 709; [2017] VSCA 187 Melbourne City Investments v Leighton Holdings Ltd [2015] VSCA 235 Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48 Money Max Int Pty Ltd (as trustee for the Goldie Superannuation Fund) v QBE Insurance Group Ltd [2018] FCA 1030; (2018) 358 ALR 382 Moore v Inglis (1976) 9 ALR 509 Oliver v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2) (2012) 205 FCR 540; [2012] FCA 755 Perera v GetSwift Ltd [2018] FCA 732; (2018) 127 ACSR 1 Perera v GetSwift Ltd [2018] FCAFC 202 Petersen Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2017] FCA 699 Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 370 R v Turner [1975] QB 834 R v Uduma (2013) 115 SASR 318; [2013] SASCFC 2 Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 569; [2003] FCA 933 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42 Sharma v Timminco Ltd (2009) 99 OR (3d) 260 Smith v Australian Executor Trustees Limited; Creighton v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2016] NSWSC 17 Thirteenth Corp Pty Ltd v State [2006] FCA 979; (2006) 232 ALR 491 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28 Treasury Wine Estates Ltd v Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd (2014) 45 VR 585; [2014] VSCA 351 Vitapharm Canada Ltd v F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd [2000] OJ No 4594 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538; [1990] HCA 55 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55 Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2019] FCAFC 34 Wigmans v AMP Ltd (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 257 Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1045; (2018) 128 ACSR 534 Wigmans v AMP Ltd (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 162 Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1118 Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2018] FCAFC 143; (2018) 359 ALR 43 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34 Texts Cited: Vincent Morabito, An Empirical Study of Australia's Class Action Regimes, Second Report: Litigation Funders, Competing Class Actions, Opt Out Rates, Victorian Class Actions and Class Representatives (Sept 2010) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Marie Wigmans (Plaintiff in Wigmans proceeding) Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd (Plaintiff in Fernbrook proceeding) Wileypark Pty Ltd (Plaintiff in Wileypark proceeding) Andrew Georgiou (Plaintiff in Georgiou proceeding) Komlotex Pty Ltd (Plaintiff in Komlotex proceeding) AMP Limited (Defendant in all proceedings) Representation: Counsel: R Lancaster SC with A Hochroth and P Meagher (Plaintiff in Wigmans proceeding) D Rappoport (Solicitor) (Plaintiff in Fernbrook proceeding) A Leopold SC with W Edwards and D Fahey (Plaintiff in Wileypark proceeding) I Pike SC with J Burnett (Plaintiff in Georgiou proceeding) C Moore SC with G Donnellan (Plaintiff in Komlotex proceeding) E Collins SC with I Ahmed and E Bathurst (Defendant in all proceedings)