Carnie & Anor v Esanda Finance Corporation Limited

The applicants, Ainsley George Carnie and another, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the scope of the rule relating to representative actions, specifically whether the procedure was available in the circumstances of the present case.

The legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the "same interest" requirement for representative actions. The applicants argued that the traditional rule, as established in cases like *Duke of Bedford v Ellis*, permitted representative actions where there were several individual claims that shared a common ingredient, even if those claims were not identical or joint. They contended that the majority in the Court of Appeal had interpreted the rule too narrowly, equating "same interest" with a "common interest" or "joint interest," thereby unduly restricting the availability of the procedure.

The applicants submitted that the "received notions" of the rule allowed for flexibility and that modern English jurisprudence, including decisions like *Prudential Assurance* and *Irish Shipping*, supported a broader application. They argued that the common ingredient in the present claims, despite their individual nature, satisfied the principles of *Duke of Bedford v Ellis*. The High Court considered whether the "same interest" meant a common or identical interest, or if it encompassed claims with a common ingredient, as advanced by the applicants.