Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 4) - [2016] NSWSC 487

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 487
Hearing dates: 15 April 2016
Date of orders: 15 April 2016
Decision date: 15 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1)   The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the proceedings on 10 December 2015.

(2)   The balance of the defendant’s notice of motion filed 24 March 2016 be adjourned to Friday, 29 April 2016 at 9.30am before Beech-Jones J.

(3)   The plaintiff’s notice of motion filed 30 March 2016 be adjourned to Friday, 29 April 2016 at 9.30am before Beech-Jones J.
(4)   The parties to confer in relation to the appropriate orders for the further progress of the proceedings.
Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – costs – defence seeks order in respect of discrete issues – whether costs should be reserved or costs order made – adjournment of hearing of determination of separate question because of departure from its foreign law notice.
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – Pt 10, s 56
Cases Cited: - Regie National des Uisines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] HCA 10; 210 CLR 491
- Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) (2015) NSWSC 83
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

Judgment (revised from ex tempore)

On 24 March 2016, the defendant filed a notice of motion which sought seven orders. The first four orders concerned the future conduct of the proceedings. They included an order for the service of forms of particulars and the referral of the proceedings and individual claims to mediation, as well as an order that the proceedings no longer continue under Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Those four orders must be considered in context with a motion filed by the plaintiffs on 30 March 2016, which sought nine orders directed to the further conduct of the proceedings and the determination of the individual claims of group members.
It suffices to state that there have been submissions directed to the general subject matter of those orders, but the parties’ positions have moved considerably since the time of the filing of the notices of motion. These aspects of both notices of motion will be adjourned for two weeks to allow the parties to discuss what fell from the Bench concerning the further progress of the proceedings, including the provision of particulars, referral of the matter for a mediated outcome, and failing that, the referral of individual claims to obtain an adjudicated outcome.
The only remaining dispute so far as today is concerned are three costs orders sought in prayers 5, 6 and 7 of the defendant's notice of motion. Prayer 5 sought an order for the payment by the plaintiff of the costs of, and incidental to,…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 487
Case: [2016] NSWSC 487
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lam, a representative plaintiff, commenced proceedings against Rolls Royce Plc in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned alleged misleading or deceptive conduct by Rolls Royce in relation to the maintenance of Rolls Royce engines used in various aircraft. The matter was subject to representative proceedings under the Class Actions Act 2010 (Cth). Rolls Royce sought an order for costs in relation to certain discrete issues that were resolved in its favour. The court had to determine whether the costs should be reserved for determination at a later stage or whether an order should be made at that time.

The court considered the appropriate approach to costs in representative proceedings, particularly in the context of discrete issues. It noted that the court has a discretion to order costs at any stage of the proceedings, but that this should be exercised with caution and consideration of the overall fairness and efficiency of the proceedings. The court held that where a party seeks an order for costs in relation to discrete issues, the court should consider whether it is appropriate to make a costs order at that time or to reserve the issue for determination at a later stage. In this case, the court found that it was appropriate to reserve the issue of costs in relation to the discrete issues for determination at a later stage.

The court also considered Rolls Royce's request for an adjournment of the hearing of the determination of a separate question because of a departure from its foreign law notice. The court found that the departure from the notice did not warrant an adjournment and that the matter should proceed as scheduled. The court held that the parties had an obligation to provide accurate and complete information in their notices and that a departure from the notice did not automatically entitle a party to an adjournment.

In conclusion, the court held that the costs in relation to the discrete issues should be reserved for determination at a later stage and that there was no basis for an adjournment of the hearing of the determination of a separate question. No orders were made in relation to costs at that time.

Orders