Impiombato v BHP Group Limited (No 2)

Impiombato v BHP Group Limited (No 2) involved a shareholder class action brought on behalf of non-resident shareholders of both the respondent, an Australian company, and a United Kingdom company. The dispute centred around the applicability of provisions in Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to group members who are not residents of Australia, as well as the court's discretion to exclude non-resident group members from the proceeding. The case also considered the viability of claims based on alleged contraventions of the continuous disclosure provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

The primary legal issues revolved around the applicability of Australian representative proceedings to non-resident shareholders in a dual listed company structure and the court's discretion to manage such proceedings. The court had to determine whether the provisions of Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) could be applied to non-resident group members and whether the court should exercise its discretion to exclude non-resident group members from the proceeding or require them to register their participation.

The court found that the provisions of Part IVA could indeed apply to non-resident group members. In terms of discretion, the court ruled that it would not exercise its discretion to exclude non-resident group members from the proceeding outright but left open the possibility of requiring them to register their participation. This decision was based on the court's consideration of the practicalities and fairness of including non-resident shareholders in the class action, as well as the implications for the management of the proceeding.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered each party to file a written submission on the costs of the interlocutory application within 14 days. The decision highlighted the complexities involved in managing shareholder class actions that involve non-resident shareholders and the need for careful consideration of jurisdictional and procedural issues.