FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited [2018] FCA 1052
File number(s): VID 535 of 2018
NSD 878 of 2018
VID 670 of 2018
VID 680 of 2018Judge(s): LEE J Date of judgment: 11 July 2018 Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – competing class actions – applications made to transfer four class actions to Supreme Court of New South Wales – case management orders made and hearing date fixed by docket judge in accordance with Practice Note to allow for the hearing of transfer applications in the Federal Court – subsequent applications made in the state court heard and determined in advance of existing listing in the Federal Court – potential anti-suit injunction would prevent compliance with existing orders of the Federal Court and the docket judge receiving submissions from interested applicant parties on the exercise of his discretion to transfer – directions made to inform the Court as to whether applicants in the Federal Court proceedings propose to bring an application to preserve the status quo so as to facilitate the hearing of any such applications potentially by a Full Court in the original jurisdiction Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 20(1A)
Jurisdictions of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) s 5
Class Actions Practice Note (GPN-CA)
Cases cited: Pegasus Leasing Ltd v Cadoroll Pty Ltd (1996) 59 FCR 152
Perera v GetSwift Limited [2018] FCA 732
Santos Ltd v Helix Energy Services Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 282; (2009) 28 VR 595
Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1045
Heydon JD, Leeming MJ and Turner PG, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2015)
Date of hearing: 11 July 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 19 Counsel for the Applicant in VID 535 of 2018: Mr W A D Edwards Solicitor for the Applicant in VID 535 of 2018: Phi Finney McDonald Counsel for the Applicant in NSD 878 of 2018: Mr J S Burnett Solicitor for the Applicant in NSD 878 of 2018: Shine Lawyers Counsel for the Applicant in VID 670 of 2018: Mr R J Weber SC Solicitor for the Applicant in VID 670 of 2018: Slater & Gordon Counsel for the Applicant in VID 680 of 2018: Mr G Donnellan Solicitor for the Applicant in VID 680 of 2018: Maurice Blackburn Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Finch SC, Mr I Ahmed and Ms Bathurst Solicitor for the Respondent: Herbert Smith Freehills ORDERS
VID 535 of 2018 BETWEEN: WILEYPARK PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: AMP LIMITED ACN 079 354 519
Respondent
JUDGE:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JULY 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant inform the Court by 4.00 pm on 13 July 2018 as to whether any application is proposed to be made to preserve the status quo pending the current hearing of the Transfer Applications as ordered by Middleton J.
Note: Entry of orders is…
Continue reading Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited [2018] FCA 1052
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1052
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed these issues by considering the competing applications for the transfer of the class actions to the Supreme Court. It recognised the importance of ensuring that any decision on the transfer of proceedings would not be prejudiced by actions taken in another jurisdiction. The court noted that the state court had already heard and determined some applications in advance of the existing listing in the Federal Court, which could potentially undermine the authority of the Federal Court's orders. The court concluded that any anti-suit injunction would prevent compliance with the existing Federal Court orders and the docket judge's discretion to transfer the proceedings. To manage the situation, the court directed the applicant to inform it whether any application was proposed to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the transfer applications. This direction aimed to facilitate the potential hearing of any such applications by a Full Court in the original jurisdiction.
The court's reasoning highlighted the need for procedural coherence and respect for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. By directing Wileypark Pty Ltd to inform the Court about any proposed applications to preserve the status quo, the court ensured that all relevant parties were aware of the potential implications of their actions and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Federal Court's orders. This decision underscored the court's commitment to managing complex multi-jurisdictional proceedings effectively.
The orders required Wileypark Pty Ltd to inform the Court by 4.00 pm on 13 July 2018 regarding any proposed application to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the transfer applications. This directive aimed to ensure that the court had all necessary information to make an informed decision about the appropriate sequence and jurisdiction for the class actions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant inform the Court by 4.00 pm on 13 July 2018 as to whether any application is proposed to be made to preserve the status quo pending the current hearing of the Transfer Applications as ordered by Middleton J.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.