Legal Research
Cases
Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3)

Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3)

Case [2015] NSWSC 83 19 February 2015

Class Actions

Discovery & Disclosure

Class Actions

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83
Hearing dates: 6 February 2015
Date of orders: 19 February 2015
Decision date: 19 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1)   The plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 8 January 2015 be dismissed.

(2)   On or before 27 February 2015 the plaintiff serve the defendant with a list of the persons and crew whom he contends were aboard the flight referred to in [4] of the Amended Statement of Claim.

(3)   The parties confer in relation to the form of orders otherwise necessary to give effect to this judgment.

(4)   On or before 20 March 2015 the parties file either agreed orders, or competing versions of the orders, necessary to give effect to this judgment.

(5)   Proceedings stand over for further directions to 27 March 2015 at 9.30am.
(6)   Costs reserved.
Catchwords:
CLASS ACTIONS - discovery - whether should be ordered if might lead to disproportionate costs being incurred.

CLASS ACTIONS – class closure orders – whether claimants who do not register should be removed from class – differentiation between overseas passengers and crew and Australian passengers and crew.

CLASS ACTIONS – whether potential class members should be ordered to provide basic particulars of loss – mediation – need to facilitate.
CLASS ACTIONS – defective Opt Out Notice – need to reissue.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 60, s 162, s 175, s 183
Supreme Court Act 1986, s 33ZG
Cases Cited: - P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 176
- Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805
- Lam v Rolls Royce’s PLC (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 647
- McMullen v ICI Operations Pty Ltd (No 6) [1998] FCR 14
- Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd 2013 VSC 17
- Winterford v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1199
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Sandy Lam (Plaintiff)
Rolls Royce PLC Reg No 4706930 (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
J.E. Rowe (Plaintiff)
N.E. Chen (Defendant)
Solicitors:
LHD Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Holman Fenwick Willan (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/037342
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The necessity for this judgment has arisen because the parties to this litigation have reached an impasse over its future progress. In short, the plaintiff seeks orders for discovery against the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC (“Rolls Royce”), an exercise that appears likely to be time consuming and expensive. Rolls Royce seeks orders to effect so called “class closure”, a concept I will explain, and requiring potential class members to provide basic particulars of their loss for the purpose of advancing settlement discussions. For the reasons that I will explain I will take that latter course.

Background

The background to the proceedings is set out in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805 (“Lam”) at [3] to [5]. I will not repeat that discussion save to observe that, at the time of that judgment, it was thought that…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83
Case: [2015] NSWSC 83
Decision Date: 19 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) involved a class action brought by Lam on behalf of passengers and crew of certain flights, alleging that Rolls Royce PLC was liable for injuries sustained due to alleged engine defects. The dispute reached the court with several issues pertinent to the management and conduct of the class action. The court had to determine whether discovery should be ordered, despite the potential for disproportionate costs. It also considered whether claimants who did not register should be removed from the class, particularly distinguishing between overseas and Australian passengers and crew. Further, the court examined whether potential class members should be ordered to provide basic particulars of their loss, and the role of mediation in facilitating the process. Finally, the court addressed the issue of a defective Opt Out Notice and whether it should be reissued.

The court carefully examined the potential for disproportionate costs arising from discovery and weighed this against the need for evidence to proceed with the action. It concluded that while discovery was generally a necessary tool, in this case, the potential costs outweighed the benefits. Regarding class closure, the court decided that claimants who did not register should be removed from the class, but made a distinction between overseas and Australian passengers and crew, potentially allowing for different treatment based on jurisdictional and practical considerations. The court also found that ordering potential class members to provide basic particulars of their loss was necessary to facilitate the mediation process, emphasising the importance of clear information for effective dispute resolution. Finally, the court ruled that a defective Opt Out Notice should indeed be reissued to ensure all potential class members were adequately informed and could make an informed decision about their participation in the class action.

In summary, the court issued orders reflecting a balance between the procedural needs of the class action and the rights of individual class members. It directed that certain claimants be removed from the class based on their registration status and geographical considerations, while also emphasising the importance of clear communication and information sharing among class members. The final orders included the direction to reissue the Opt Out Notice and the requirement for basic particulars of loss from potential class members to aid in mediation efforts. This decision highlights the court's role in managing class actions to ensure they proceed efficiently and fairly.

Orders