Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2)

Dillon v RBS Group (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) is a case involving a representative proceeding under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act). The applicants, representing a group of investors, sought approval of a settlement with the respondents, RBS Group (Australia) Pty Limited and others. The dispute centred on the terms of the settlement, particularly a provision requiring group members to execute a deed poll as a condition of participating in the settlement distribution scheme. The respondents argued there was uncertainty regarding the binding of participating group members to the settlement, as approved by the Court. The applicants contended that the settlement terms were necessary to quell the entire controversy between the parties.

The court was required to determine whether the orders made under section 33V of the Act were sufficient to quell the entire controversy between the applicants, group members, and the respondents. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it was necessary to obtain deed poll releases from group members as a condition of participating in the settlement distribution scheme. The court also addressed whether solicitors could assume they would be appointed administrators of settlement distribution schemes approved by the Court.

The court found that the settlement orders, which included the requirement for group members to sign a deed poll, were sufficient to quell the entire controversy between the parties. The court emphasised that under section 33ZB of the Act, a judgment in a representative proceeding binds all group members who have not opted out of the proceeding. Therefore, if the Court makes an order binding all remaining group members, those persons are, by force of that order, bound. The court further explained that the statutory agency created by Part IVA of the Act is limited in scope, and applicants have no role in representing group members in respect of individual claims other than the claim that is the subject of the representative proceeding. The court concluded that obtaining deed poll releases from group members was superfluous and not required to bind them to the settlement terms.

The court approved the settlement on the terms set out in the Settlement Deed and the Settlement Scheme, appointed Shine Lawyers as the administrator of the Settlement Scheme, and dismissed the second amended originating application and the third amended statement of claim. The court also made orders regarding costs, confidentiality, and the administration of the Settlement Scheme.