Case: Bishop v Bridgelands Securities Pty Ltd (1990) 25 FCR 311 
Outcome: referred to
The Bank parties submitted that in considering whether the proceedings would be consolidated or heard together, similar issues arise under Rule 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) as would arise on an application for joinder in reliance on O 6 r 2(b) of the Federal Court Rules . Matters relevant to the exercise of the discretion in respect of the latter rule were considered by Wilcox J in Bishop v Bridgelands Securities (1990) 25 FCR 311. Of particular relevance to this application is the passage at 314 315 where his Honour said: 'Similarly, although all applicants might propose to rely upon some common, or similar facts, there may be such differences between the evidence intended to be relied upon in support of the claims of particular applicants as to make it inexpedient to join the claims. The discrete material may overbear that which is common to all the claims. Again, there may be cases in which the sheer number of the claims, if joinder is permitted, will impose an undue burden on the respondent; although it seems to me unlikely that this will be so except in cases where separate evidence is proposed to be adduced in support of individual claims.' 67 It is inherent in the OMB parties' submissions that they propose to lead evidence from the OMB parties, the Traderight applicants and, it seems, others which will fall into the category of evidence governed by s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) . That is, it appears to be the OMB parties' intention to call evidence from one person that representation X was made to that person for the purpose of persuading the Court that it is more likely that the same representation was also made to one or other of the various applicants. 103 The Bank parties drew the Court's attention to a selected passage in Bishop 25 FCR, where Wilcox J considered matters relevant to the exercise of the Court's discretion. This case was decided by reference to O 6 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules so it cannot be relied upon as authoritative on how the Supreme Court is likely to make future case management decisions with respect to these matters under r 28.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules . 104 In any event, the case assists the OMB parties cross vesting motion, as the following excerpt at 314 indicate: 'As the discretion conferred by sub-rule (b) is, in terms, unconfined, it would be inappropriate to specify circumstances in which it might be applied. Everything must depend upon the facts of the particular case. But it is appropriate to consider what principles ought to guide the exercise of such a discretion. The basic principle, as it seems to me, is that the Court should take whatever course seems to be the most conducive to a just resolution of the disputes between the parties, but having regard to the desirability of limiting, so far as practicable, the costs and delay of the litigation. Considerations of costs and delay may often support the grant of leave under sub-rule (b); but, in my opinion, leave ought not to be granted unless the Court is affirmatively satisfied that joinder is unlikely to result in unfairness to any party. Secondly, regard must be had to practical matters. For example, if would normally be inappropriate to grant leave for the joinder of applicants who were represented by different solicitors. There must be a single solicitor, or firm of solicitors, who is accountable for the conduct of the proceeding on the applicants' side of the case.' 105 It is clear that the OMB parties in the proceedings before this Court and the plaintiffs in the Traderight proceedings are all represented by McCabe Terrill Lawyers.