Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited

The Federal Court of Australia was presented with a case involving Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd, which had initiated a class action against Amcor Limited and others, seeking damages for alleged cartel activities. The defendants, represented by Maurice Blackburn, opposed the orders sought in the Notice of Motion, arguing that they were neither justified nor necessary. The class action involved group members who had purchased corrugated fibreboard packaging products in Australia between 1 May 2001 and 1 May 2005. The court had ordered a notice to be published to inform group members of their rights to opt out of the proceedings, which was published on 26 March 2008. The Visy parties claimed that public statements made by Mr. Slade, a representative of the plaintiff, were inaccurate and misleading, potentially impacting the integrity of the opt-out process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the public statements made by Mr. Slade were misleading and inaccurate, and if so, whether they necessitated corrective action. The Visy parties argued that Mr. Slade's statements incorrectly attributed certain comments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and provided misleading figures regarding the potential damages. Counsel for Maurice Blackburn contended that the group members, being sophisticated individuals, would not be unduly influenced by such statements and would seek legal advice. However, the court was not convinced that the group members' financial transactions alone made them more astute or less susceptible to false representations.

The court found that the statements made by Mr. Slade were indeed misleading and inaccurate. It ruled that protecting the integrity of the opt-out process required corrective measures. Consequently, the court ordered that a Correcting Notice be issued by the plaintiff’s legal representatives. Additionally, the opt-out date was extended from 30 April 2008 to 30 May 2008 to ensure group members had adequate time to review the Correcting Notice. The court also mandated that the parties collaborate on the form and content of the Correcting Notice, with a deadline for submission set by the court. The application was dismissed in all other respects, and costs were reserved for future determination.