Legal Research
Cases
Wigmans v AMP Ltd

Wigmans v AMP Ltd

Case [2018] NSWSC 1118 12 July 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wigmans v AMP Limited [2018] NSWSC 1118
Hearing dates: 12 July 2018
Date of orders: 12 July 2018
Decision date: 12 July 2018
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1.   Make orders in accordance with the Consent Orders initialled and dated today and placed with the Court papers:
The Court notes that:
(i)   The plaintiff and each of the FCA Class Action Applicants have undertaken to each other and the Court that, until 7 days after the determination of the defendant’s applications to transfer the Federal Court Proceedings to this Court, they will not make or move upon any application or other court process for anti-suit relief (whether an anti-suit injunction, anti-anti-suit injunction, or anti-anti-anti-suit injunction) with respect to the conduct of their respective proceedings against AMP Limited.
(ii)   The plaintiff will not make or move upon any application in this proceeding for a common fund order or orders for the distribution of an opt out notice without first providing 7 days’ notice to each of the FCA Class Action Applicants.
(iii)   The undertaking in paragraph (i) does not prevent any FCA Class Action Applicant from seeking anti-suit relief to prevent the plaintiff from continuing to seek a common fund order or orders for the distribution of an opt out notice.
(iv)   The plaintiff will send an agreed communication to the Associate to Stevenson J to the effect that the plaintiff does not seek that its anti-suit application filed on 14 June 2018 be determined until after the expiry of seven days from the determination of the defendant’s applications to transfer the Federal Court Proceedings to this Court.
2.   The Court orders that the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 12 July 2018 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Catchwords: EQUITY – Equitable remedies – Injunctions – Application for injunction restraining the applicants in certain Federal Court proceedings from making an application in those proceedings in relation to the conduct of these Supreme Court proceedings and from taking any further step in relation to the conduct of those Federal Court proceedings – Notice of motion dismissed by consent with no order as to costs
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1337H
Cases Cited: Commandate Marine Corporation v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Limited (2006) 157 FCR 45; [2006] FCAFC 192
CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345; [1997] HCA 33
Santos Limited v Helix Energy Services Pty Limited (2009) 28 VR 595; [2009] VSC 282
Wigmans v AMP Limited [2018] NSWSC 1045
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Marion Antoinette Wigmans (Plaintiff)
AMP Limited (Defendant)
Komlotex Pty Ltd (Interested Party)
Andrew Georgiou (Interested Party)
Wileypark Pty Ltd (Interested Party)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hochroth and P Meagher (Plaintiff)
E Bathurst (Defendant)
B Slade (solicitor) (Komlotex Pty Ltd)
Solicitors:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Plaintiff)
Herbert Smith Freehills (Defendant)
Maurice Blackburn (Komlotex Pty Ltd)
Shine Lawyers (Andrew Georgiou)
Phi Finney McDonald (Wileypark Pty Ltd)

File…

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 Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1118
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1118
Decision Date: 12 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Wigmans, sought an injunction against AMP Ltd, restraining the respondents from making any application in certain Federal Court proceedings regarding the conduct of the applicants' Supreme Court proceedings. The application also sought to prevent the respondents from taking further steps in relation to the conduct of those Federal Court proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction preventing the respondents from making an application in the Federal Court proceedings regarding the conduct of the Supreme Court proceedings. The court had to consider the appropriate circumstances in which such an injunction would be granted and the balance of convenience in favour of the applicants.

The court dismissed the notice of motion by consent. Both parties agreed that no further steps should be taken in relation to the conduct of the Federal Court proceedings. Consequently, the court made no order as to costs. The dismissal by consent indicates that both parties reached a mutual understanding regarding the proceedings and did not require the court to make a determination on the merits of the application.

No final orders were made by the court as the matter was dismissed by consent. The dismissal by consent signifies that the parties had resolved their differences and did not require the court to issue any specific orders.

Orders