Fenton v Monsanto Australia Pty Ltd

In Fenton v Monsanto Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Fenton, sought leave to discontinue a class action lawsuit against Monsanto Australia, which was alleged to have manufactured and sold Roundup, a herbicide with carcinogenic properties. The case was considered a duplicative representative proceeding, as a similar case had already been unsuccessfully tried. The applicant sought to discontinue the proceeding, while the respondent sought terms for such discontinuance. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the discontinuance was fair, reasonable, and in the interests of the group members, as well as considering the implications of discontinuance versus dismissal and the necessity of a limitation period order.

The court examined the difference between discontinuance and dismissal, noting that discontinuance did not equate to a finding of the proceeding being without merit, unlike dismissal. The court also considered the meaning of "determined" within the context of the proceeding. The court found that the discontinuance was fair and reasonable and in the interests of the group members. The court declined to make an order as to costs, resulting in all outstanding costs orders being vacated.

The court approved the discontinuance and ordered the dismissal of the proceeding. The court further noted that the parties had entered into a deed of release on 12 December 2024. The entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court's decision and orders provided clarity on the implications of discontinuance in representative proceedings and highlighted the importance of considering the interests of the group members in such cases.