Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Use this fork when the defendant files an application under s 166(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) for an order that the proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding. The defendant argues that the individual issues in the claims of each group member overwhelm the common questions such that it is in the interests of justice to declass the action and require each member to pursue their own individual proceeding. The practitioner must gather compelling systemic evidence showing that common questions continue to predominate, and must file responsive affidavits before the s 166 hearing.
This fork operates before the Representative Proceedings List Judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The application is made by Notice of Motion under s 166(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. If the motion is rejected, the parent plan resumes. If the motion is granted, the proceeding transitions to either a joinder of multiple plaintiffs or individual actions for each group member, each requiring individual case management.
The defendant's s 166(1) Notice of Motion is received and analysed to identify the specific individual issues the defendant contends overwhelm the common questions. Evidence of the systemic nature of the claims is gathered, including central payroll policies or other uniform conduct by the defendant, uniform shift patterns or operational practices applied across the class, statistical evidence showing the breadth of affected group members, and expert analysis confirming that a single determination of the common questions would resolve the substantial majority of each group member's claim. A responding affidavit is filed before the s 166 hearing demonstrating the continued predominance of common questions. Legal submissions are prepared distinguishing the case from precedents where declassing was justified. The s 166 hearing is attended. If the motion is rejected, the parent plan resumes immediately. If the motion is granted, the transition plan for individual proceedings or joinder is activated.
Key legislation: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 166(1) (court may order that proceeding no longer continue as representative proceeding if it is in the interests of justice to do so), s 157 (original threshold requirements that continue to be relevant to the declassification analysis: 7+ persons, same circumstances, substantial common question); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Part 58; Practice Note SC GEN 17 (effective 1 August 2024). The interests of justice test in s 166(1) requires the court to weigh: the efficiency gain from a representative proceeding against the individual differences in each group member's claim; the likely costs to group members of individual proceedings; and whether the systemic conduct at the core of the claims can be resolved by a common finding.
* 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 Representative Proceedings - Class Action NSW (SC GEN 17) (Lead Plaintiff) - Declassing and Discontinuance Challenge Under Section 166(1) CPA 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 systemic evidence is assembled and the responding affidavit is ready to demonstrate that common questions continue to predominate over individual issues.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
The court has determined the s 166 motion. If rejected: the class action continues on the standard parent plan pathway.
Coordinate the collection and review of all financial documentation required for disclosure, including statements, valuations, and supporting schedules as mandated by the rules.
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.
The proceeding is resolved either as a continuing class action or as transitioned proceedings. All group members are notified of the outcome.
Assess the strategic considerations for interim applications, prepare supporting evidence, and draft the necessary documentation for urgent or time-sensitive relief sought.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Under s 182(3) CPA (NSW), the suspension of the limitation period under s 182(1) ceases when a court orders that the proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding. This means the limitation period recommences from the date of the s 166 order - NOT from the date the representative proceeding was commenced. Practitioners must calculate the exact date the individual limitation period expires for each client, having regard to the original limitation period applicable to each client's claim and the period it was suspended from the commencement of the representative proceeding.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.