Auskay International Manufacturing and Trade Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Limited

In this case, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to decide several issues relating to the substitution of representative applicants, the definition of group members, and the calculation of damages in a representative proceeding. The Applicant, Auskay International Manufacturing and Trade Pty Ltd, sought to substitute two other companies, De Brett Seafood Pty Ltd and J Wisbey & Associates Pty Ltd, as representative applicants in a representative proceeding against several airlines, including Qantas Airways Limited and British Airways PLC. The Applicant also sought to amend the definition of "group member" in its second amended application and fourth amended statement of claim. Furthermore, the Applicant sought leave to file a third amended application and a fifth amended statement of claim, as well as orders for the filing and service of defences and any cross-claims and any replies by the Applicants.

The court held that it had the power to make the orders sought under s 33Z(1)(g) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and O 6, rr 8 and 9 of the Federal Court Rules. The court found that the two willing parties should be substituted as Applicants, and that the Court has a broad discretionary power to award costs against a person who was acting as a representative party. The court also found that the proposed amendments to the group definition would meet the requirements of s 33H(1)(a) of the Act, and granted leave to amend the definition of "group member" in the application and the statement of claim. Finally, the court granted leave to file a third amended application and a fifth amended statement of claim, and made orders for the filing and service of defences and any cross-claims and any replies by the Applicants.

In conclusion, the court granted the orders sought by the Applicant, including the substitution of representative applicants, the amendment of the definition of group members, and the fixing of a timetable for the completion of pleadings. The court found that the proposed amendments to the group definition would meet the requirements of s 33H(1)(a) of the Act, and that the Applicant should be granted leave to file a third amended application and a fifth amended statement of claim. The court also found that the Court has a broad discretionary power to award costs against a person who was acting as a representative party.