Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3)

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.