Soni Satti
The Australian High Court while hearing an appeal rejected the ”First to file” approach and stated that there is no ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to choose between competing class actions.
The class action of Five shareholders competing against AMP limited got overlapped and the plaintiffs sought their class actions to proceed first in the NSW Supreme Court.
The Judge tried to analyze and determine which action should progress and ultimately choose one case that minimized the cost to class members and weighted most on funding proposals and stayed the rest actions.
The plaintiff who has filed the first-class action against AMP appealed and argued that it is oppressive to commence an action if there exists an already pending case with the same matter.
By a majority of 3:2 in the case of Wigman’s v AMP Limited, Australia’s High Court rejected the appeal, finding no error in the judge’s approach. The majority bench stated,
There is no “one size fits all” approach to competing class actions. However, there should be a focus on what is in the best interests of class members. Litigating funding arrangements and the likely quantum to be recovered are one relevant consideration.