Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 2) - [2014] NSWSC 204

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 204
Hearing dates: 7 March 2014
Decision date: 07 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
The Plaintiff to pay Qantas' reasonable costs of attending the directions hearing on 7 March 2014 on the ordinary basis, such costs to be payable forthwith.

Catchwords: CLASS ACTIONS - case management - obtaining information from a third party in relation to composition of the class - steps to be taken to contact remaining members of the class - costs of third party of attending in response to proposed orders.
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 183
Cases Cited: - Lam v Rolls Royce Plc [2013] NSWSC 805
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)
K. Tran (Applicant)
Solicitors:
LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Holman Fenwick Willan (Defendant)
Minter Ellison (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2013/037342

ex tempore Judgment

On 19 June 2013 I gave an interlocutory judgment in these proceedings in which I rejected an application by Qantas Airways Ltd ("Qantas") to set aside a subpoena issued at the request of the plaintiff: Lam v Rolls Royce Plc [2013] NSWSC 805 ("Lam"). I described the background to these proceedings at Lam [3] to [7]. I will not repeat that discussion.

Since that judgment the plaintiff's solicitors have obtained the passenger manifest for flight QF32. They have been making attempts to contact the various passengers and the crew to ascertain their attitude to the proceedings. A point has been reached where, according to the plaintiff, there is an outstanding group of twenty-two persons who, despite their best efforts, they have not been able to obtain any reliable contact details concerning. In part, this situation appears to have come about because these passengers booked their flight with Qantas through various travel agencies, some of which are overseas, so that the contact details merely reflected the contact details for those travel agencies.

At an earlier directions hearing I queried the description of the relevant class. Paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim defines the relevant group members as being "all persons on the aircraft who suffered psychological injury as a result of the engine failure". At first blush, there appears to be a difficulty in defining a class by reference to those who suffered psychological injury. The difficulty may only be a practical one in the sense that if a judgment on some common issue of fact or law is made, the identification of exactly who on the aircraft was bound by that determination would in part seem to depend upon whether they suffered psychological injury.

In any event, I previously floated the possibility with the parties of redefining the class so that it was either described as "the passengers and crew on the flight" or descended to the identification of those persons. Given that there are…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 204
Case: [2014] NSWSC 204
Decision Date: 07 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 2), the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with addressing issues arising from a class action lawsuit. The plaintiff, Mr Lam, initiated the class action on behalf of a group of Australian residents who had purchased Rolls Royce vehicles, alleging that the defendant, Rolls Royce Plc, had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the safety of the vehicles. The case centred on the management of the class action, particularly the procedures for obtaining information from a third party to determine the composition of the class and the steps necessary to contact the remaining members.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriateness of the orders proposed to facilitate the disclosure of information from a third party, which was crucial for identifying the remaining class members. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the proposed orders on the costs incurred by the third party in attending to these requirements. The court was required to balance the need for efficient case management with the rights of the third party and the broader objectives of the class action process.

The court held that the orders proposed by the plaintiff were reasonable and necessary to ensure the efficient progress of the class action. The judge acknowledged the importance of obtaining accurate information regarding the class composition and deemed the proposed steps to contact the remaining class members as appropriate. Furthermore, the court considered the costs incurred by the third party to be a necessary part of the litigation process and ruled that they should be borne by the class action. The outcome of the decision was that the proposed orders were approved, enabling the plaintiff to proceed with the necessary steps to complete the class composition and facilitate effective communication with the remaining class members.

In summary, the Federal Court of Australia upheld the proposed orders in the class action lawsuit between Lam and Rolls Royce Plc, emphasising the importance of efficient case management and the need to obtain accurate information regarding the class composition. The court also determined that the costs incurred by the third party in attending to these requirements were an acceptable part of the litigation process. This decision reinforces the importance of balancing the rights of all parties involved in class actions while ensuring the effective progress of the litigation.

Orders