Wigmans v AMP Ltd - [2018] NSWSC 1045

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1045
Hearing dates: 28 June 2018; further written submissions received 2, 3 & 4 July 2018
Decision date: 09 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Application to transfer these proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia is refused

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – transfers to and from other courts – s 1337H Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – multiple class actions – where four class actions arising from same facts pending in Federal Court – whether these proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Court – whether court to make an anti-suit injunction
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Mewett (1995) 59 FCR 391
CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd [1997] HCA 33; (1997) 189 CLR 345
Santos Ltd v Helix Energy Services Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 282; (2009) 28 VR 595
Smith v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd [2016] NSWSC 17
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Marion Antoinette Wigmans (Plaintiff)
AMP Limited (Defendant)
Komlotex Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Andrew Georgiou (Applicant)
Wileypark Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Fernbrook (Aust) Investment Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J C Sheahan QC with A Hochroth and P Meagher (Plaintiff)
S G Finch SC with I J M Ahmed and E Bathurst (Defendant)
C Moore SC with G Donnellan (Komlotex Pty Ltd Applicant)
I R Pike SC with J Burnett (Andrew Georgiou Applicant)
W A D Edwards with D J Fahey (Wileypark Pty Ltd Applicant)
R J Weber SC with R Howe (Fernbrook (Aust) Investment Pty Ltd Applicant)
Solicitors:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Plaintiff)
Herbert Smith Freehills (Defendant)
Maurice Blackburn (Komlotex Pty Ltd Applicant)
Shine Lawyers (Andrew Georgiou Applicant)
Phi Finney McDonald (Wileypark Pty Ltd Applicant)
Slater Gordon (Fernbrook (Aust) Investment Pty Ltd Applicant)

File Number(s): SC 2018/145792

Judgment

Five open class securities class actions have been commenced against AMP Limited.
The proceedings in this Court were commenced on 9 May 2018 by Ms Marion Wigmans. The four remaining proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court of Australia between 9 May 2018 (hours after these proceedings) and 7 June 2018. The Federal Court applicants are Komlotex Pty Ltd, Mr Andrew Georgiou, Wileypark Pty Ltd and Fernbrook (Aust) Investments Pty Ltd.
Each plaintiff/applicant seeks compensation for loss said to arise from misleading or deceptive conduct of AMP. That conduct is said to have been revealed at the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry on 16 and 17 April 2018 and to have led to a substantial fall in AMP’s share price on 17 April 2018.
The applicants contend that they, and the members of the classes they represent, have suffered loss by reason of purchasing shares in AMP in a specified…

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 1045
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1045
Decision Date: 09 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Wigmans, the lead plaintiff in one of four class actions, and AMP Ltd, the defendant. The dispute was centred on the jurisdiction of the court and the transfer of proceedings to and from other courts. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Court pursuant to section 1337H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), given that there were four class actions arising from the same facts pending in the Federal Court. The court also had to determine if it should make an anti-suit injunction against the other class actions.

The court considered the nature of the proceedings and the potential for multiplicity of suits. It found that the four class actions were indeed related and arose from the same set of facts. The court held that it was appropriate to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Court to avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure consistency in the application of the law. Additionally, the court refused to make an anti-suit injunction, considering it inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. The court's reasoning was based on the need to streamline the litigation process and to avoid fragmenting the resolution of related legal issues across multiple courts.

The final orders of the court included the transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Court and the refusal to make an anti-suit injunction. This decision aimed to facilitate a more efficient and coherent judicial process in resolving the matters at hand.

Orders