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
-
Can social media chat logs be documents in Federal Court?
The Federal Court has addressed the hearsay rule exception of using a log from an instant messaging platform to prove the identity of the sender, date, time of the message, and contents of the statement.
-
Preliminary discovery procedures in the Federal Court
This article provides an overview of the general rule and exceptions for issuing a disclosure document when raising capital in Australia, including related restrictions, definitions and anti-avoidance provisions.
-
Subpoenas to produce documents – Federal Court
This article provides an overview of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which regulate the interaction between businesses and consumers in Australia. It explains how the CCA applies to any particular transaction.
-
Categories of discovery – Federal Court
This article provides an overview of the process of seeking discovery of documents in a matter before the Federal Court of Australia. It covers the requirements for standard, non-standard and more extensive discovery, as well as the definition of a category of documents.
-
Consolidation of proceedings – Federal Court
Rule 30.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) allows the Court to consolidate or hear together/consecutively related proceedings. This article examines the factors for the Court to consider and steps for parties seeking an order.
-
Aristocrat wins big in Federal Court ruling
In the Federal Court’s decision of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778, the Court found that a claim for an electronic gaming machine with a combination of physical parts and computer software for gameplay did constitute patentable subject matter.
-
Offers to settle: Federal Court Rules c.f. Calderbank offers
Settling out of Court can bring advantages, but parties must be aware of potential legal costs consequences of offers. Rejecting an offer unreasonably can lead to paying other’s costs or losing entitlement to costs.
-
Federal Court rules on unfair contract clauses
This case serves as a reminder to businesses and consumers to review their contracts and ensure they are compliant with the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Find out more about the Federal Court ruling and what it means for businesses and consumers.
-
Discovery process in the Federal Court of Australia
Discover the process for seeking documents in the Federal Court of Australia. Learn about the roles of the parties, criteria for standard and non-standard discovery, and the process of giving discovery. Get the full details on the Federal Court Rules 2011 and its revised regime for discovery.
