Stack v AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicants from two separate proceedings sought to consolidate their cases against AMP Financial Planning Pty Limited and related entities. The applicants from the Winterton Proceeding were represented by Piper Alderman, while the applicants from the Stack Proceeding were represented by Shine Lawyers. Both sets of applicants were funded by Woodsford Litigation Funding 2 LLP and Woodsford Litigation Funding 5 LLP. The applicants sought to consolidate their proceedings due to common issues of law and fact and to manage their joint legal representation efficiently.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the consolidation of the proceedings was appropriate, and if so, what terms should govern the joint representation of the applicants by two firms of solicitors. The court had to consider whether the joint representation could be managed without a conflict of interest and whether a contradictor was necessary to supervise the operation of a litigation protocol. The court also needed to determine the costs associated with the consolidation application and the funding arrangements for the applicants.

The court found that consolidation was appropriate given the commonality of issues between the proceedings. It granted the consolidation and approved the joint representation of the applicants by Piper Alderman and Shine Lawyers, subject to specific conditions designed to manage potential conflicts of interest and to ensure efficiency in the litigation process. The court held that a contradictor was not necessary to supervise the operation of the litigation protocol. The costs of duplicative work performed by the joint solicitors were deemed not recoverable against the applicants or the respondents. The court also appointed an independent costs referee to monitor the work of the solicitors and provide recommendations to reduce costs and duplication. The court dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the respondents in one of the original proceedings.

In summary, the court consolidated the two proceedings into a single proceeding and outlined detailed conditions for the joint representation of the applicants by two firms of solicitors, including the establishment of a litigation committee, the engagement of a single set of counsel, and the appointment of a costs referee. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the consolidation application and the funding arrangements for the applicants.