FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kirby v Centro Properties Limited [2008] FCA 1505
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – representative proceedings – whether multiple actions raising same issues should be permitted to proceed – factors to be considered in deciding whether to stay, consolidate or hold a joint trial – whether priority in time of filing, interests of lawyers, interests of litigation funders or interest of named plaintiff are relevant – whether best interests of the group as a whole should be the standard for determining which action should proceed and on what basis – whether multiple plaintiffs may be separately represented – risk of conflict of interest between solicitor and group members in class actions – whether litigation committee should be appointed in order to determine best interests of group members as a whole and select class legal representative – whether solicitor to represent class should be selected by means of court-supervised competitive bidding process
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33N, 33ZF
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 1995 (US) ss 15 USC 78u-4, 78u-5Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act (US), House Bill 5463, 110th Congress s 4 (2008)
Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act (US), Senate Bill 3033, 110th Congress s 3 (2008)In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation 918 FSupp 1190 (NDIll 1996)
Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation 197 FRD 71 (SDNY 2000)
Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Inc v Berner 472 US 299 (1985)
Cameron v McBain [1948] VLR 245
Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (2002) 122 FCR 168
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Horwood v Statesman Publishing Co (1929) 98 LJKB (NS) 450
Holden v Silkstone and Dodworth Coal & Iron Co Ltd (1881) 45 TLR (NS) 531
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
J I Case Co v Borack 377 US 426 (1964)
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Limited (1999) 56 ATPR 41-679
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Limited (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 601
In Re Lucent Technologies Inc Securities Litigation 221 FSupp2d 472 (DNJ 2001)
In re Oracle Securities Litigation 131 FRD 688 (NDCal 1990)
Parklane Hosiery Co Inc v Shore 439 US 322 (1979)
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Saffron v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 30 FCR 578
The Strathgarry [1895] P 264
In re Wells Fargo Securities Litigation 156 FRD 223 (NDCal 1994)V Morabito, “Defendant Class Actions and the Right to Opt Out: Lessons for Canada from the United States” (2004) 14 Duke J of Comp & Intl L 197
RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED and CPT MANAGER LIMITED
VID 326 of 2008
RICHARD KIRBY v CENTRO RETAIL LIMITED and CENTRO MCS MANAGER LIMITED
VID 327 of 2008
NICHOLAS VLACHOS, MONATEX PTY LTD and RAMON FRANCO v CENTRO PROPERTIES LIMITED, CENTRO RETAIL LTD and CENTRO MCS MANAGER LTD
VID 366 of 2008
FINKELSTEIN J
10 OCTOBER 2008
MELBOURNE
Continue reading Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd [2008] FCA 1505
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1505
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether a litigation committee should be appointed and, if so, what powers should be given to it. The court considered the need for effective management of the proceedings and the interests of the proposed class members. It examined the principles of fairness and justice in relation to the proposed class action, and the role of the court in overseeing such proceedings to ensure they are conducted in a manner that is fair and efficient for all parties involved. The court also weighed the potential benefits of appointing a litigation committee against the risks of creating additional complexity and potential delays in the proceedings.
The Federal Court ultimately decided that a litigation committee should be appointed to manage and oversee the proceedings. The court held that the interests of justice required the appointment of such a committee to ensure the proceedings were conducted efficiently and effectively on behalf of the proposed class members. The court also outlined the powers that should be given to the committee, including the authority to make decisions about the conduct of the litigation, to instruct the lawyers representing the class, and to manage the financial resources of the class action. The court's decision was aimed at balancing the need for effective management of the proceedings with the rights and interests of the proposed class members. The court reserved costs, indicating that further submissions would be required to determine the final allocation of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. A reasonable time prior to 29 October 2008, the parties file and serve written submissions on whether and, if so, how a litigation committee should be appointed and what powers should be given to that committee in regards to the management and oversight of these proceedings.
2. The matter be listed for a directions hearing on 29 October 2008 at 2.00 pm.
3. Costs reserved.
1. The respondents’ application for a stay is dismissed.
2. A reasonable time prior to 29 October 2008, the parties file and serve written submissions on whether and, if so, how a litigation committee should be appointed and what powers should be given to that committee in regards to the management and oversight of these proceedings.
3. The matter be listed for a directions hearing on 29 October 2008 at 2.00 pm.
4. Costs reserved.
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
Established by: FINKELSTEIN J
Full text does not contain this section.