Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2020] NSWSC 504

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Komlotex Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd [2020] NSWSC 504 Hearing dates: 30 April 2020 Date of orders: 08 May 2020 Decision date: 08 May 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Ward CJ in Eq Decision: 1. Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed 21 April 2020 by Ms Wigmans. 2. Reserve the question of costs. Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING – CIVIL PROCEDURE – multiplicity of proceedings – whether representative proceeding ought to be effectively stayed pending appeal from decision staying duplicative proceeding

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Stay of proceedings — where orders sought an effective stay pending appeal Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act, ss 56, 58, 61(1), 157, 159, 162, 163, 173, 177, 179, 182, 183, Pt 10 Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), ss 33V, 33ZB Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 50 High Court Rules 2004, r 42.09 Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), Pt 4A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 2.1 Cases Cited: Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 24; (1997) 71 ALJR 814 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish [1980] FCA 33; (1980) 43 FLR 129 BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster [2019] HCA 45; (2019) 374 ALR 627 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25 Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1037 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 220; [1986] HCA 13 Gerah Imports Pty Ltd v The Duke Group (in Liq) [1994] HCA 3; (1994) 68 ALJR 196 Haselhurst v Toyota Motor Corporation Ltd t/as Toyota Australia [2020] NSWCA 66 Inabu Pty Ltd v CIMIC Group Ltd [2020] FCA 510 Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (No 1) (1986) 161 CLR 681; [1986] HCA 84 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 56; (1999) ATPR 41-679 Jones v Treasury Wine Estates [2017] FCA 296 Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 737; [2002] NSWCA 383 King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 270 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd (2017) 252 FCR 1; [2017] FCAFC 98 Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 27 Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [No 2] [1998] HCA 32; (1998) 72 ALJR 869 Perera v GetSwift Ltd (2018) 263 FCR 1; [2018] FCA 732 Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2010] FCA 749 Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403 Rinehart v Welker (2012) 83 NSWLR 347; [2012] NSWCA 1 Rodger v Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (1871) 3 LR PC 465 Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1991] HCA 59; (1991) 66 ALJR 219 Temwork Holdings Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 65; (2004) 132 LGERA 439 Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2019] NSWCA 243; (2019) 373 ALR 323 Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2019] NSWSC 603 Texts Cited: V Morabito, "Class Actions Instituted Only for the Benefit of the Clients of the Class Representative's Solicitors" (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 5 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Komlotex Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff) Fernbook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff) AMP Limited (First Defendant) Marion Antoinette Wigmans (Applicant) Representation: Counsel: CA Moore SC with A d'Arville (Plaintiffs) EA Collins SC with IJM Ahmed (Defendant) A Hochroth (Applicant)