Two competing proposed class actions alleged an international price‑fixing conspiracy relating to rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries and related consumer electronic products.
Counsel in each action sought carriage of the class proceeding and a stay of the other action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
The court assessed factors including the scope of the claims, progress of the actions, proposed representative plaintiffs, class definitions, coordination with related proceedings, and the preparedness and strategic approach of counsel.
While both sets of counsel were experienced and many factors were neutral, the court found that the Shah action demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach, including earlier steps to refine the class definition, add defendants, obtain case management, and coordinate expert analysis.
The court concluded that awarding carriage to that action best advanced the interests of the proposed class.