King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd

In King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd, the primary issue revolved around the communication protocols between GIO and the members of the group for whom the representative proceeding was being maintained, alongside the validity of Part IVA of the relevant Act. The case involved Mr King who, through his solicitors Maurice Blackburn Cashman (MBC), initiated a representative proceeding against GIO, alleging that GIO's conduct caused financial loss to shareholders. The court was tasked with determining whether GIO could lawfully communicate with the group members and if Part IVA of the Act was valid.

The court examined the specific communication methods and their compliance with the orders set by the Supreme Court. It also considered whether the filing of the notice of motion and the affidavit in question constituted a breach of these orders. The court deliberated on the potential for selective enforcement of the orders, wherein certain actions might be deemed non-compliant while others were not, thereby complicating the contempt proceedings. The court acknowledged the possibility that the application might not be in contempt, leaving unresolved the issue of whether specific actions, such as the swearing and filing of the affidavit and conversations with opposing solicitors, were indeed in breach of the orders.

The court concluded that while the making and pursuit of the application might not constitute contempt, other actions might still be in breach of the court orders. To address this, the court proposed making the order subject to further directives, allowing for the possibility of future applications if needed. Additionally, the court ruled that Maurice Blackburn Cashman must provide GIO with lists of individuals who had signed fee and retainer agreements and those who had registered an interest. GIO, in turn, was required to share drafts of correspondence intended for the representative group with MBC ten days prior to sending. The court also stipulated that GIO could only communicate with group members in writing and needed court leave to send any settlement offers.

The final orders included directives for both parties to exchange specific lists of individuals, required GIO to submit draft correspondence to MBC, and restricted GIO from sending settlement offers without court approval. The court dismissed the notice of motion filed by GIO on 3 April 2002 and denied leave to use the affidavit sworn on 30 May 2002, while allowing the parties to apply on short notice regarding correspondence.