In civil litigation it is surprisingly common for the parties to have more than one matter before the Court with overlapping fact matrices. Rule 30.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (Rules) provides a mechanism by which the Federal Court, at the request of one or more of the parties to separate proceedings, can consolidate two or more separate but related proceedings.
Rule 30.11 also provides the Court and relevant parties with flexibility where proceedings are related but a consolidation is not be appropriate by allowing the Court to order separate proceedings to be heard together or consecutively as an alternative.
While opportunities to take advantage of this rule may not arise often, when they do, practitioners should strongly consider whether an order under Rule 30.11 (Order) should be sought as the potential for savings in time and legal costs may be significant.
How to obtain an order under Rule 30.11
When it becomes apparent that an Order may be appropriate, the first step should be to raise it with the other parties to the related proceedings to obtain their view on the matter.
The potential for time and costs savings may cause the parties to related proceedings to form the view that a consolidation is appropriate and that they should co-operate with any application for an Order. In such a case any party can file an application for the Order and, with the application, it would be appropriate to file proposed consent orders agreed to by all the parties consenting to the application. Where necessary it may be appropriate for affidavits to be filed providing further explanation why an Order is appropriate in the circumstances.
Where agreement cannot be reached that an Order should be made, the party that seeks an Order should make the application and from there the process follows any normal application.
Factors considered by the Court in making an order to combine proceedings
When determining whether an Order under Rule 30.11 is appropriate in the circumstances the Court will have regard to a number of factors including the following nine factors identified by His Honour Justice Besanko in Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699 (Humphries):
- are the proceedings broadly of a similar nature?
- are there issues of fact and law common to each proceeding?
- will witnesses (lay and expert) in one proceeding be witnesses in one or more of the other proceedings?
- has there been an alternative proposal put forward that there be a test case and have the parties agreed to abide the outcome, or, at least, the determination of common issues of fact and law?
- is there a prospect of multiple appeals with substantial delays if the proceedings are not tried at the same time?
- will there be a substantial saving of time if the proceedings are tried at the same time, compared with each proceeding being tried separately?
- will an order that the proceedings be tried at the same time create difficulties in terms of trial management, complexity of procedural issues and difficulties in determining cross-admissibility of evidence?
- is one proceeding further advanced in terms of preparation for trial than the others?
- are there parties to one or some only of the proceedings who will be inconvenienced if all of the proceedings are tried at the same time?
The rule His Honour is referring to in Humphries, Federal Court Rule O 29 r 5, is a precursor of the current Rule 30.11 and from the former Federal Court Rules however, the factors have since been referred to with approval with respect to Rule 30.11 including by His Honour Justice Greenwood in Walsh, Liquidator of D&R Community Services Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liq) v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCA 1739.
Links and further references
Legislation
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases
Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699
Further information about Federal Court procedures
If you need advice about management of multiple proceedings in the Federal Court, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about Federal Court procedures
-
What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?
The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA). This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…
-
WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context
The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…
-
Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim
The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…
-
Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?
On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay). Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…
-
Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note
On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note).
-
What is a concise statement?
A concise statement is a brief, plain language document, often drafted in narrative form, used by the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) to ‘triage’ a case.[1] Concise statements were introduced as part of the Federal Courts Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (Practice Note), which came into effect on 25 October 2016. Its stated purpose…
-
Default judgment – contumacious non-compliance with Court orders
The recent Federal Court case of Pieman v Monks Resources PL v Monks [2025] FCA 88 (Pieman v Monks v Monks) shows the lengths a plaintiff must go to before the Court will order default judgment based on ongoing failure by a defendant to comply with orders. The case involved allegations of misleading and deceptive…
-
Federal Court guidelines for e-discovery and metadata
Electronic discovery in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) is nothing new. From July 2014, the FCA began implementing the Court’s electronic court file (ECF) across its Australian registries. This enabled the Court to embrace the use of technology in proceedings, including the use of electronic discovery, eLodgement, eTrials, eCourtroom, and video conferences.
-
Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?
Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim. However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.
