Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: This fork activates when competing class action law firms present materially identical funding proposals, net return calculations, legal cost estimates, and solicitor experience, creating a carriage stalemate that cannot be resolved by the standard Wigmans multi-factorial analysis. Under Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7, the court has broad discretion to appoint a special referee to audit competing proposals or an independent contradictor to represent ordinary group members' interests. This guide covers: identifying the stalemate, preparing materials for the referee or contradictor, cooperating with the inquiry process, attending the referee's report hearing, and executing post-determination steps.
Jurisdiction: Federal Court of Australia or Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The Process at a Glance: Carriage stalemate identified at carriage hearing. Court appoints a special referee or independent contradictor. All competing firms provide funding materials and net return calculations to the referee or contradictor by CD6. Referee submits report or contradictor makes submissions to the court. Carriage hearing resumed and determination made.
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Cross-Vesting, Carriage Disputes and Concurrent Class Actions (Lead Plaintiff) - Carriage Stalemate - Special Referee or Independent Contradictor Appointment matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for LITIGATION cases, outlining the standard DISPUTE_LITIGATION process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
A clear, expert-supported comparison of competing funder terms is ready for use at the carriage hearing and, if a stalemate arises, for provision to the special referee or contradictor.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
TPT Patrol Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd [2019] FCA 1747 (Federal Court - Murphy J): Established key criteria for carriage dispute resolution before the Wigmans HCA decision. The court examined: (1) the terms of the funding agreements (commission rate, coverage of group members, step-up provisions); (2) the estimated legal costs and their effect on net return to class members; (3) the experience of the plaintiff firm and its track record in resolving class actions; (4) the size and cohesion of the class definition; and (5) the litigation plans of the competing firms. Murphy J emphasised that the primary focus is on what will deliver the best outcome for the group members as a whole, not what advantages a particular firm or funder.
Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7 (High Court): Confirmed TPT Patrol's multi-factorial approach and confirmed that net expected return to group members is the primary criterion. The High Court warned against over-weighting any single factor and emphasised the court's broad discretion in selecting the proceeding that best serves the group as a whole.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
The carriage dispute is formally before the court. If stalemate, a special referee or contradictor is appointed and CD6 is on foot.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
The referee's independent assessment is before the court. The resumed carriage hearing can proceed.
Conduct a thorough review of all filed materials to ensure compliance with court requirements, verify service obligations have been met, and prepare for the next procedural milestone.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.
Coordinate the collection and review of all financial documentation required for disclosure, including statements, valuations, and supporting schedules as mandated by the rules.
Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7 (High Court): The High Court expressly warned against a 'crude auction' to determine carriage where all other factors are equal. The court has broad discretion under its inherent powers to appoint additional investigative officers - including special referees and independent contradictors - to resolve genuine stalemates without resorting to arbitrary selection mechanisms. Post-Wigmans, multiple carriage disputes have been resolved with the assistance of court-appointed contradictors in both the Federal Court and NSW Supreme Court.
TPT Patrol Pty Ltd v Myer Holdings Ltd [2019] FCA 1747 (Federal Court - Murphy J): Murphy J's approach to funder terms analysis in that decision is the precedent template for materials to be provided to a special referee or independent contradictor. The court placed particular weight on: (a) unredacted funder commission rates; (b) whether the funder covered all class members or only signed-up clients; and (c) whether the funding agreement contained step-up provisions that would increase the commission if the matter ran to trial. All three of these matters must be clearly addressed in the materials provided to the referee.
Assess the strategic considerations for interim applications, prepare supporting evidence, and draft the necessary documentation for urgent or time-sensitive relief sought.