Wigmans v AMP Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the stay of multiple representative proceedings brought against AMP Ltd. Five open class representative actions were commenced against AMP within a short period, alleging misconduct related to fee disclosure, misleading conduct, and share price inflation. The appellant, Ms Wigmans, was the representative plaintiff in the first proceeding commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. She sought orders to permanently stay the other four proceedings, arguing that her action, being filed first, should be preferred.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court's power to grant a stay of competing representative proceedings was confined by a "first-in-time" rule or presumption, and whether litigation funding arrangements were a relevant consideration under section 67 of the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) when exercising this power. The court was also required to determine if the primary judge had erred in considering these funding arrangements.

The High Court rejected the submission that a "first-in-time" rule dictates which proceeding should be preferred. Instead, the court affirmed that the exercise of the power to grant a stay involves a multifactorial approach aimed at achieving justice and promoting the efficient administration of justice. This approach considers various factors, including competing funding proposals, costs estimates, net hypothetical returns to members, the nature and scope of causes of action, the size of classes, the experience and resources of legal practitioners and funders, and the progress of the proceedings. The court found that the primary judge had correctly applied this multifactorial approach, giving significant weight to the comparative analysis of funding models and their likely impact on group member returns, and that the consideration of litigation funding arrangements was permissible and relevant.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court ordering that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.