Clurname Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 1)

Clurname Pty Ltd and other applicants filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct related to the sale of structured credit default obligations (SCDOs). The applicants sought damages on behalf of a class of investors who had invested in the SCDOs based on the bank's recommendations. The main legal issues in the case were whether the Court should amend the definition of the class to exclude institutional investors and those who had already settled with the bank, and whether the Court should restrict the benefits of a potential settlement to those class members who registered within a specified time frame.

The Court considered the arguments presented by both the applicants and the respondents. The applicants argued that excluding certain investors from the class definition and settlement was necessary to secure a settlement with the bank. The respondents, including Lifeplan and Big Sky, opposed the amendments, stating that they were not in the best interests of all class members and that the applicants should not be allowed to narrow the class definition after the proceeding had commenced. The Court found that the applicants' evidence, including the confidential affidavit of Ms. Banton, was sufficient to support the claim that the bank would not settle the proceeding if certain investors remained in the class.

The Court ruled that it should proceed on the basis that the bank would not settle the proceeding if institutional investors and settled investors remained as class members. The Court decided to grant the applicants' request to amend the class definition to exclude these investors and to limit the benefits of a potential settlement to those who registered within the specified time frame. The Court also granted the respondents' request for access to the Settlement Deed and Ms. Banton's confidential affidavit, subject to confidentiality terms.

In conclusion, the Court granted the applicants' request to amend the class definition and limit the benefits of a potential settlement, finding that the applicants' evidence was sufficient to support their claims. The Court also granted the respondents' request for access to certain documents, subject to confidentiality terms. The parties were ordered to bring in Short Minutes of Order to give effect to the Court's Reasons for Judgment.