5 Boroughs NY Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (No 2)

The defendants, the State of Victoria, applied to strike out a statement of claim brought by the plaintiffs, 5 Boroughs NY Pty Ltd, alleging economic loss caused by the defendants' negligent conduct in implementing a hotel quarantine program during the COVID-19 pandemic. The claim was part of a group proceeding seeking compensation for economic losses allegedly suffered due to the defendants' exercise of emergency powers under section 200 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic). The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed on the grounds that they failed to disclose a cause of action, would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, or were otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed a cause of action and whether it complied with the requirements of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). Specifically, the Court considered whether the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action or might prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, or were otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, as per Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) sections 51(1), (2) and r 23.02(a), (c), (d).

The Court held that the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed a cause of action and did not constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach, causation, and damages, and that the defendants' exercise of emergency powers did not shield them from liability. The Court also rejected the argument that the claim might prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding, noting that the issues raised in the claim were common to all plaintiffs in the group proceeding and could be efficiently managed through a coordinated process. The Court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the statement of claim.

The Court ordered that the defendants' application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed, and the proceedings would continue to be managed as a group proceeding.