This judgment is procedural, but the commercial story is useful. Investors said the company's public financial reporting and audit material told the market the wrong story. The company said some of the new allegations should not be allowed because similar facts had already been fought in ASIC's case. The Court allowed the amendments.
The key point is that related facts do not always mean the second case is an abuse of process. Here, the representative proceeding was brought by different parties, against different respondents, under different provisions and with an additional auditor defendant. The Court was not prepared to shut investors out merely because ASIC had already run a regulatory case over a similar factual background.
For founders, directors and finance teams, the lesson is to treat financial reporting as a long evidence trail. Revenue recognition decisions, milestone share triggers, audit files, corporate governance statements and risk disclosures can matter to regulators, shareholders, auditors and class-action applicants. Winning or narrowing one proceeding may not stop another group from testing the same business story through a different legal route.