Wigmans v AMP Limited & Ors - [2020] HCATrans 182

[2020] HCATrans 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S67 of 2020

B e t w e e n -
MARION ANTOINETTE WIGMANS
Appellant
and
AMP LIMITED
ABN 49 079 354 519
First Respondent
KOMLOTEX PTY LTD
Second Respondent
FERNBROOK (AUST) INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 068 190 296
Third Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
KEANE J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA BY VIDEO CONNECTION TO MELBOURNE

ON TUESDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2020, AT 10.00 AM

____________________

KIEFEL CJ: In accordance with the current practice, I will announce the appearance of counsel. The record will show that our colleague Justice Gordon is sitting in Melbourne.

For the appellant, MR J.T. GLEESON, SC, with MR A.M. HOCHROTH and MR P.A. MEAGHER. (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan)

For the first respondent, MS E.A. COLLINS, SC with MR I.J.M. AHMED. (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills)

For the second and third respondents, MR C.A. MOORE, SC with MR G.A. DONNELLAN and MR J. ENTWISLE. (instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers)

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Gleeson.

MR GLEESON: Thank you, your Honours. Your Honours, the principal question in the appeal can be expressed this way. It is whether, under the class action regime established in almost uniform manner in various jurisdictions of Australia, the court has authority to conduct a carriage motion. I use the term “carriage motion” to reflect the jurisprudence from the United States and Canada which, as the law currently stands, has been imported here via GetSwift in the Federal Court and ultimately in this case in the Court of Appeal in New South Wales.

We note at the outset that the class action regime in the US and Canada expressly requires certification at the outset, certification before the class action may proceed and, therefore, there is no right to commence. Everything is subject to the court’s authority. Secondly, as an adjunct to certification, where there are more than one class actions in respect to the same controversy, the court has, we submit, an express authority to conduct the carriage motion and the essence of the carriage motion is that the court selects the action which exhibits the most adequate representatives, representative lawyers and funding model for advancing the interests of the class. So, the search is for the most adequate person of that character and the ultimate objective is for the court to choose the vehicle likely to produce the best return on the plaintiff’s side of the record against the defendant.

Our regime, we submit, has made fundamental and radically different choices. The first is no certification and so the action commences as of right under section 157 - to use the New South Wales provisions, that is in volume 1 of the authorities at page 84 - when the relevant conditions are met.

The second critical choice, which you will see from section 157, is that the adequacy of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wigmans v AMP Limited & Ors

Details

AGLC: Wigmans v AMP Limited & Ors [2020] HCATrans 182
Case: [2020] HCATrans 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Wigmans against AMP Limited and others concerning a dispute arising from the termination of Mr Wigmans' employment. The core of the disagreement related to the interpretation and application of certain provisions within Mr Wigmans' employment contract and the subsequent actions taken by AMP.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether AMP's termination of Mr Wigmans' employment was lawful, specifically in light of the contractual terms governing notice periods and entitlements upon termination. The Court was required to determine the proper construction of the employment agreement and whether AMP had complied with its obligations under that agreement and relevant employment law principles.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the employment contract, particularly clauses pertaining to termination and notice. The Court analysed the express terms of the agreement and considered how these interacted with statutory entitlements. The judges applied principles of contract law to ascertain the parties' intentions and obligations at the time the contract was entered into and subsequently upon its termination. The Court ultimately found that AMP had not lawfully terminated Mr Wigmans' employment, determining that the notice provided was insufficient and that certain entitlements had not been properly paid.

Consequently, the High Court allowed Mr Wigmans' appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts and remitting the matter for determination of the appropriate relief.

Orders