FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Duck v Airservices Australia [2018] FCA 1541
File number: ACD 97 of 2017 Judge: BROMWICH J Date of judgment: 12 October 2018 Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application for common fund order – whether appropriate to make common fund order – held: common fund order appropriate Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA, ss 23, 33ZF
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 1.32
Cases cited: Blairgowrie Trading Ltd v Allco Finance Group Limited (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (In Liq) [2015] FCA 811; 325 ALR 539
Lenthall v Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited [2018] FCA 1422
Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2017] FCAFC 98, 252 FCR 1
Money Max Int Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance Group Ltd [2016] FCAFC 148; 245 FCR 191
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 3 September 2018 (Applicant)
17 August 2018 (Respondent)Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division: Fair Work National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 18 Category: Catchwords Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G Donnellan Solicitor for the Applicant: Adero Law Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Kate Eastman SC and Mr A Hochroth Solicitor for the Respondent: Ashurst ORDERS
ACD 97 of 2017 BETWEEN: CATHERINE DUCK
Applicant
AND: AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 OCTOBER 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.A common fund order be made in terms that reflect the reasons of the Court.
2.The parties file a joint or competing proposed order within 7 days or such other period as may be agreed upon and notified by email to the associate to Justice Bromwich.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BROMWICH J:
On 22 December 2017, the applicant, Ms Catherine Duck, commenced a closed class representative proceeding – that is, a class action – against the respondent, Airservices Australia, under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act). The closed class comprised 76 members who have signed a funding agreement. Ms Duck relies upon an amended originating application and an amended statement of claim. Those documents were filed on 27 March 2018 in accordance with an order made by Jagot J on 20 March 2018. By that means, the definition of group members changed to an open class with the Court’s approval. A further amended originating application and a further amended statement of claim were filed on 28 August 2018, which in part clarified the class.
For present purposes, the nature of the class action may be shortly stated as seeking to recover the difference between the benefits Ms Duck and other members of the class obtained under contracts of employment…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Duck v Airservices Australia 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1541
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a common fund order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The Court had to consider the nature of the claims, the practicality of individual proceedings, and the potential benefits of a common fund for the claimants and the defendant. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the common fund would adequately and fairly compensate the claimants while also considering the administrative efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the proposed order.
Justice Bromwich, in delivering the judgment, determined that a common fund order was indeed appropriate. The Court acknowledged the complexity and number of individual claims, which made individual proceedings impractical. It was found that a common fund would provide a fair and efficient means of distributing the awarded damages to the affected residents. Justice Bromwich highlighted that a common fund would also benefit the defendant by providing a clear and final resolution of the claims. The Court directed that a common fund order be made in terms that reflected the reasons provided, and mandated that the parties file a joint or competing proposed order within a specified timeframe.
The final orders included the making of a common fund order that reflected the reasons of the Court and required the parties to file a joint or competing proposed order within seven days or an agreed period, to be notified by email to the associate of Justice Bromwich. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring that representative proceedings are handled in a manner that is fair, efficient, and beneficial to all parties involved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. A common fund order be made in terms that reflect the reasons of the Court.
2. The parties file a joint or competing proposed order within 7 days or such other period as may be agreed upon and notified by email to the associate to Justice Bromwich.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.