Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd - [2001] FCA 1037

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Courtney v Medtel Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1037
REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS - Opt out notices – role of the Court in determining form of opt out notice – need to identify deceased Group Members.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 33X, 33J, 33Y.
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 74B, 75AD, 82.
King v GIO Holdings Ltd [2000] FCA 1869
King v GIO Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 270
Femcare Ltd v Bright (2000) 100 FCR 331
McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd (1998) 156 ALR 257
KEVIN GLYNN COURTNEY in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in whom St Jude Tempo Pacemakers were surgically implanted in Australia v MEDTEL PTY LIMITED
N 661 of 2000
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
2 AUGUST 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 661 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

KEVIN GLYNN COURTNEY in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in whom St Jude Tempo Pacemakers were surgically implanted in Australia
APPLICANT

AND:

MEDTEL PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

ST JUDE MEDICAL, INC, a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at One Lillehei Plaza, City of St Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.
SECOND RESPONDENT

PACESETTER INC, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 15900 Valley View Court, Sylmar, California
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 33J(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act”), 12 October 2001 is fixed as the date by which a Group Member (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Amended Application filed herein) may opt out of these proceedings.
2.The form and content of the notice which is Annexure B to these reasons (“the Notice”) be approved for the purposes of s 33Y(2) of the Federal Court Act.
3.Subject to Order 5, the Notice be sent to each Group Member or, in the case of a deceased Group Member, to the executor or administrator of the deceased Group Member.
4.The Notice be sent by pre-paid registered post.
5.The parties follow the protocol set out in this Order:
(a)The Applicant’s solicitors will provide the Respondents’ solicitors Notices in envelopes which have been pre-paid for registered post.
(b)The Respondents’ solicitors will address and post the envelopes to Group Members, other than those Group Members known by the Respondents to be deceased.
(c)In the case of any Group Member known to reside overseas, the Respondents’ solicitors will ensure that the envelope is posted with the correct postage for pre-paid registered mail.
(d)The envelope referred to in subpars (b) and (c) will be posted not before 15 August 2001 and not later than 29 August 2001.
(e)The field staff of the first respondent will contact each of the institutions and medical practitioners to whom the Pacemakers (as defined in par 1(a) of the fourth amended application) were supplied, seeking information as to the current…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 1037
Decision Date: 2 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with addressing a class action lawsuit brought by a group of plaintiffs against medical device manufacturers. The plaintiffs, represented by Ms Courtney, alleged that the defendants had supplied faulty pacemakers that had caused harm to the plaintiffs and other members of a larger class. The central dispute involved whether the plaintiffs could proceed with the class action and, if so, how the defendants should notify potential class members of their right to opt out of the proceedings.

The court was required to resolve several key legal issues, including the appropriateness of the class action mechanism for the case at hand and the procedural steps necessary to ensure that all potential class members were properly informed of their right to opt out. A pivotal question was whether the proposed opt-out notice was sufficient and whether the method of delivery, through registered post, was appropriate. Additionally, the court needed to establish a protocol for the defendants to follow in notifying class members, including those who had passed away, to ensure compliance with the Federal Court Act.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the class action mechanism was suitable for the case, given the large number of potential class members and the commonality of their claims. The court approved the form and content of the opt-out notice, emphasizing the importance of clear and accessible communication. It mandated that the notice be sent by pre-paid registered post to ensure that all class members, including those residing overseas, received proper notification. The court also established a detailed protocol for the defendants to follow, which included timelines for the exchange of notices between the parties' solicitors and specific instructions for handling notices related to deceased class members. Ultimately, the court's orders ensured that the class action could proceed while protecting the rights of all potential class members.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 33J(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act”), 12 October 2001 is fixed as the date by which a Group Member (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Amended Application filed herein) may opt out of these proceedings.

2. The form and content of the notice which is Annexure B to these reasons (“the Notice”) be approved for the purposes of s 33Y(2) of the Federal Court Act.

3. Subject to Order 5, the Notice be sent to each Group Member or, in the case of a deceased Group Member, to the executor or administrator of the deceased Group Member.

4. The Notice be sent by pre-paid registered post.

5. The parties follow the protocol set out in this Order:

(a) The Applicant’s solicitors will provide the Respondents’ solicitors Notices in envelopes which have been pre-paid for registered post.

(b) The Respondents’ solicitors will address and post the envelopes to Group Members, other than those Group Members known by the Respondents to be deceased.

(c) In the case of any Group Member known to reside overseas, the Respondents’ solicitors will ensure that the envelope is posted with the correct postage for pre-paid registered mail.

(d) The envelope referred to in subpars (b) and (c) will be posted not before 15 August 2001 and not later than 29 August 2001.

(e) The field staff of the first respondent will contact each of the institutions and medical practitioners to whom the Pacemakers (as defined in par 1(a) of the fourth amended application) were supplied, seeking information as to the current status of the patients in whom the Pacemakers were implanted.

(f) The respondents’ solicitors will provide to the applicant’s solicitors by 15 August 2001, the name, last known address, date of birth and approximate date of death of any Group Members known to be deceased.

(g) The applicant’s solicitors will undertake a search in the Probate Division of the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which any deceased Group Member last resided, where such searches are available to the public, by 22 August 2001.

(h) Where the applicant’s solicitors are able to identify the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased Group Members, the envelope containing the opt out notice shall be addressed and sent by the applicant’s solicitors to that executor or administrator.

(i) Where the applicant’s solicitors are unable to identify the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased Group Member, the applicant’s solicitors shall address the envelope containing the opt out notice to “The Estate of [name of deceased Group Member]”.

6. A copy of the fourth amended application and the fourth amended statement of claim be available for inspection at each District Registry during Registry hours on and after 15 August 2001.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 661 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	KEVIN GLYNN COURTNEY in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons in whom St Jude Tempo Pacemakers were surgically implanted in Australia APPLICANT
AND:	MEDTEL PTY LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT ST JUDE MEDICAL, INC, a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business at One Lillehei Plaza, City of St Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. SECOND RESPONDENT PACESETTER INC, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 15900 Valley View Court, Sylmar, California THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY