In a securities-related class proceeding arising from alleged fraudulent statements about Indonesian gold reserves, the appellants challenged the refusal to certify negligent misrepresentation while conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and Competition Act claims had been certified.
The court held that there was no principled basis to distinguish fraudulent from negligent misrepresentation at the certification stage, given the overlap in common factual and legal issues and the low threshold for common issues under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
The court further held that, where three related claims were already proceeding as a class action, it was sensible and efficient to include negligent misrepresentation on the same litigation track.
The appeal was allowed and the certification order amended accordingly.
