In cross-vesting applications involving group proceedings, the connecting factors of group members as a whole must be considered, not merely those of the lead plaintiff. The availability of a sophisticated group proceeding regime (such as Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986) in the originating jurisdiction, compared with a more limited representative rule in the proposed transferee jurisdiction, is a relevant consideration in the interests of justice. The existence of a non-party indemnity fund supporting the lead plaintiff is not, without more, a basis for ordering security for costs where the funder does not stand to benefit from the proceeding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.