Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited

Case [2018] FCA 1052


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 2018
Judge(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

Details
AGLC
Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Limited [2018] FCA 1052
Case
[2018] FCA 1052
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wileypark Pty Ltd initiated representative proceedings against AMP Limited in the Federal Court of Australia, with the case involving multiple class actions. The dispute centred around the proper forum for the class actions and the appropriate sequence of proceedings between the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with deciding whether the four class actions should be transferred to the Supreme Court and, if so, the procedural implications of such a transfer. The court also needed to determine whether any anti-suit injunctions or other orders should be issued to prevent interference with the existing Federal Court orders.

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.