Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 4)

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.