Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Use this fork when a competing class action covering the same or substantially overlapping class definition is filed by a different law firm in the Supreme Court of NSW. The standard case management workflow is immediately suspended: before any further substantive steps are taken, carriage rights must be resolved to determine which proceeding will survive and which will be stayed. Under Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7, the primary criterion for resolving competing class actions is the net return to class members under each competing proceeding, determined by comparing the litigation funding model, cost estimates, solicitor experience, and overall conduct strategy of each competing firm. Verify current guidelines on the official .
This fork operates before the Representative Proceedings List Judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The carriage motion is heard as an interlocutory application. If carriage is won, the parent plan resumes. If carriage is lost, the file is closed and group members are transitioned to the surviving proceeding. Verify current guidelines on the official NSW Legislation.
The parallel filing is identified as soon as it becomes known (through court lists, media reports, or client contact). A Wigmans net return comparative analysis is compiled, comparing the two competing proceedings across: gross settlement estimate, litigation funding commission rate, legal costs estimate, net return per group member, solicitor experience in representative proceedings, funding model (litigation funder, no-win no-fee, or pro bono), and proposed class definition breadth. A Notice of Motion for a stay of the competing proceedings is filed within 14 days of identifying the competing filing. The carriage motion hearing is attended and submissions on the Wigmans criteria are made. If the carriage motion is won, the court makes consolidation orders and the parent plan resumes with an enlarged class. If carriage is lost, the file is formally closed, group members are notified of the surviving proceeding and their opt-out rights, and file records are archived. Verify current guidelines on the official NSW Legislation. Access services via the NSW Courts.
Key legislation: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 157-184 (representative proceedings); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Part 58 (class action procedure); Practice Note SC GEN 17 (effective 1 August 2024). Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7: the High Court confirmed that the primary criterion for resolving competing class actions is the net return to group members; the court compares the net amount that would be available for distribution to class members under each competing scheme, taking into account the proposed funding terms, cost estimates, and the relative experience of the competing solicitors. Note: there is no prescribed deadline for filing the stay motion under SC GEN 17, but the 14-day window from identification of the competing filing is consistent with practice and avoids any prejudice argument by the competing firm based on delay.
* 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 Litigation: Representative Proceedings - Class Action NSW (SC GEN 17) (Lead Plaintiff) - Parallel Filings and Carriage Battle - Competing Class Actions Under Wigmans 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.
The carriage position is assessed and the net return analysis supports filing a Notice of Motion for a stay of the competing proceedings.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7: The High Court confirmed that net return to class members is the primary criterion in carriage disputes. The Court held that the court should identify the proceeding that is in the best interests of the class as a whole, with financial benefit to class members being the primary consideration. Courts have applied Wigmans to prefer firms with lower commission structures and lower uplifts, even where the competing firm had greater experience, if the net financial benefit to class members was demonstrably higher.
The court has determined carriage rights. The winning firm's proceeding continues and the losing firm's proceedings are stayed.
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 fully resolved. The matter either continues under this firm's management or the file is closed with all necessary notifications made.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.