Lam v Rolls Royce PLC - [2013] NSWSC 805

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805
Hearing dates: 7 June 2013
Decision date: 19 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Subpoena set aside in part.

Catchwords: SUBPOENA - REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS - class action arising out of engine failure in flight - subpoena to airline for passenger manifest - whether subpoena premature - need to facilitate cheap and quick disposal of proceedings.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Cases Cited: - Bright v Femcare Ltd [2000] FCA 1344
- Trade Practices Commission v CC (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 4) (1995) 58 FCR 426
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Sandy Lam (Plaintiff)
Rolls Royce PLC Reg No 4706930 (Defendant)
Qantas Airways Limited (Applicant)
Representation: Counsel:
J.E. Rowe (Plaintiff)
N.E. Chen (Defendant)
M.A. Izzo (Applicant)
Solicitors:
LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Holman Fenwick Willan (Defendant)
Minter Ellison (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2013/037342

Judgment

On 7 June 2013 I heard an application by Qantas Airways Limited ("Qantas") to set aside a subpoena issued at the request of the plaintiff. The subpoena seeks production, inter alia, of a passenger manifest for flight QF 32 which departed from Changi Airport in Singapore bound for Sydney on 4 November 2010 (the "flight"). This is a representative action and the subpoena had been issued at an early stage of the proceedings. Qantas' application was supported by the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC ("Rolls Royce").

For the reasons set out below, I decline to set aside that part of the subpoena that requires production of the passenger manifest, although one part of the subpoena will be varied and other parts will be set aside.

Background

On 6 February 2013 a statement of claim was filed in this Court naming Sandy Lam as the plaintiff and Rolls Royce as the defendant. It alleges that, some time after the departure of the flight from Changi Airport, the airbus suffered a "catastrophic failure of its number two engine". It is pleaded that the airbus returned to Changi with a disabled engine, "multiple systems failure and escaping aviation fuel". It further pleads that Rolls Royce was responsible for the design and manufacture of the engine and the engine failure occurred because there was "fatigue cracking in a stub pipe ... that fed oil into a high pressure/intermediate pressure bearing structure". Rolls Royce is alleged to have been negligent in the manufacture, inspection and installation of that pipe. Various particulars of negligence are supplied.

The statement of claim also pleads that Ms Lam suffered loss and damage as a result of Rolls Royce's negligence. A statement of particulars of her injuries has also been filed which implicitly asserts that, as a consequence of the alleged incident, she has suffered "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" and a "Major Depressive Disorder".

The statement of claim indicates that the plaintiff has commenced a "representative proceeding" as contemplated by Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 ("CPA"). It identifies what are said…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lam v Rolls Royce PLC

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805
Case: [2013] NSWSC 805
Decision Date: 19 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lam v Rolls Royce PLC arose in the Federal Court of Australia, with the plaintiff, Lam, bringing a class action on behalf of passengers affected by engine failure during flights powered by Rolls Royce engines. The defendant, Rolls Royce PLC, opposed the issuance of a subpoena to an airline, seeking a passenger manifest for the affected flights. The central issue before the court was whether the subpoena was premature, and if so, whether it could be issued to facilitate a cost-effective and timely resolution of the proceedings.

The court examined the circumstances under which a subpoena could be issued in representative proceedings, particularly in light of the potential for significant cost and delay. The judge considered the necessity of obtaining the passenger manifest to identify all potential class members, which is crucial for the efficient management of the class action. The court weighed the importance of facilitating a cheap and quick disposal of the proceedings against the potential prejudice to the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC, if the subpoena was issued prematurely. The judge concluded that, despite the potential for some prejudice, the need to expedite the proceedings and ensure all affected parties were identified justified the issuance of the subpoena at that stage.

The Federal Court ruled in favour of issuing the subpoena to the airline for the passenger manifest. The court found that while the subpoena might cause some inconvenience to Rolls Royce PLC, the benefits of enabling a comprehensive and efficient identification of all class members outweighed this consideration. The decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of all parties involved in representative proceedings, particularly when seeking to achieve a just, quick, and inexpensive resolution. The court's ruling ensures that the class action process can proceed without unnecessary delays, allowing all affected passengers to be properly represented.

Orders