When Five Class Actions Collide Before Anyone Chooses a Lawyer
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Litigation Procedure › Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7
Published: 11 November 2025 | Reviewed: 5 December 2025
(3-minute read)
When multiple class actions start competing,
the court cannot choose the winner,
even if one promises a better return.
This case reveals a hidden risk almost no Australian shareholder sees coming:
five class actions can be filed for you without your knowledge,
but the court is not allowed to choose the one that serves you best.
What Happened
When AMP executives admitted during the 2018 Royal Commission that customers had been charged fees for no service, AMP’s share price fell sharply. Within weeks, five open-class shareholder actions were launched. Each claimed AMP misled the market, and each was filed by a different legal team under different funding arrangements.
Every shareholder automatically became a group member in all of them.
Four of the plaintiff groups asked the Supreme Court of New South Wales to stay the other cases so only one would go forward.
The question became unprecedented:
Can a court compare competing class actions and choose which one should run?
What the High Court Decided
The High Court said no.
Kiefel CJ and Keane J held that Australian courts do not have the legal power to select which class action is “better” for group members. They cannot:
compare funding commissions,
compare expected returns,
run a “beauty contest” between law firms or litigation funders, or
pick the case they believe would give shareholders more money.
Unless Parliament changes the law, courts may only stay later proceedings if they offer a legitimate juridical advantage or if running more than one case would be vexatious or oppressive.
Because the later AMP actions did not offer any legal advantage over the first proceeding, the High Court ruled that the first case, Wigmans’ case, must continue, and the later cases must be stayed.
Why This Matters for Australians
This judgment exposes a structural truth most people do not realise:
When multiple class actions are filed, you might assume a court will choose the one that protects you best. But Australian law does not give courts that safety function.
That gap leaves real risks:
You may be bound to the first case filed, not the best designed case.
Competing funders may file quickly to secure advantage.
Courts cannot compare returns or efficiency, even if huge differences exist.
A case may proceed even if another proceeding appears more favourable for group members.
This decision also signals that only Parliament, not courts, can create a proper certification or carriage system.
Clean Law’s Structural Parallel
This case shows what happens when the legal system lacks a clear mechanism to decide who should take the lead. Clean Law addresses a comparable risk in ordinary civil disputes through structural clarity, not judicial discretion.
Where the High Court could not step in to choose the cleanest pathway, Clean Law removes confusion through the Two-Lawyer Collaboration and Escrow Oversight system, which keeps pathways separate and transparent so clients understand who controls each stage and why.
Read how this structural safeguard protects clients from governance blind spots: Two-Lawyer Collaboration and Escrow Oversight Statement
When Procedure Shapes Justice
Wigmans v AMP shows that justice can be shaped not just by evidence or misconduct, but by the structure of litigation itself. Without a statutory carriage model, the court must let the first proceeding continue even if another might deliver better outcomes.
For Australians caught in class actions, this structural rule matters as much as the underlying claim. It determines who speaks for thousands, without any mechanism for choosing the safest or fairest voice.
Clean, transparent structures reduce those risks. When the law leaves a vacuum, fairness should never be left to chance.
Read more about: Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2021] HCA 7
- OR -
Request a Consultation to understand how Clean Law structures litigation ethically - balancing efficiency, funding, and justice.
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
