Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 5) - [2016] NSWSC 1332

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1332
Hearing dates: 16 September 2016
Date of orders: 16 September 2016
Decision date: 16 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) Order that all claims by group members for damages or other relief against the defendant arising out of the events onboard QF32 on 4 November 2010 who have not, in accordance with the orders made on 27 March 2015, registered their intention to claim compensation for psychological injury and who are listed in annexure A be dismissed pursuant to s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW);
(2) Order that the dismissal of the claims identified in order (1) is to operate as a final determination of the rights of the individual group members listed in annexure A to claim damages or other relief against the defendant arising out of the events onboard QF32 on 4 November 2010.

Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE ACTION – class closure – dismissal of claim by non-registered group members – order that dismissal operates as final determination of claims
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] VSC 212
King v AG Australia Holdings Limited [2002] FCA 1560
Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805
Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83
Lam v Rolls Royce (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 487
Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (2013) 39 VR 255; [2013] VSC 17
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: None

ExTEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This judgment concerns an application by the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC (“Rolls Royce”), for the dismissal of the claims of some group members of a representative action who have not registered their claims against Rolls Royce in accordance with the Court's orders. One of the orders sought is that the dismissal operates as a final determination of those claims.
The nature and scope of the proceedings was described in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805 at [3] to [5]. Rolls Royce is sued as the entity responsible for the manufacture of an engine that is said to have failed on a Qantas fight that departed from Changi airport in Singapore on 4 November 2010. The action was brought on behalf of those persons who were onboard the flight and who suffered a psychological injury as a result of their experiences consequent upon the engine failing.
The number of persons aboard the flight was approximately 470. Over time, the number of persons said to fall within the relevant group has been reduced as various passengers have opted out. Further, for the reasons given in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83 (“Lam (No 3)”),…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1332
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1332
Decision Date: 16 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 5), the plaintiffs, Lam and other individuals, sought to bring a representative action on behalf of a class of non-registered group members against the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC, alleging breaches of Australian Consumer Law. The dispute centred on whether the court should allow the dismissal of the claim by non-registered group members to operate as a final determination of their claims, despite the absence of formal registration by all class members. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue for the court was whether it could permit the dismissal of claims by non-registered group members to have the effect of a final determination of those claims, despite procedural requirements for class actions not being fully satisfied. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the absence of formal registration by all class members should preclude the dismissal from having the desired finality, and whether such a course would be in the interests of justice.

The court concluded that allowing the dismissal to operate as a final determination of the claims was appropriate. The reasoning was based on the fact that the non-registered group members had been given adequate notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to opt out, and that the dismissal was in the interests of justice, given the procedural and practical challenges of ensuring full participation in class actions. The court also noted the importance of finality in litigation and the need to avoid protracted proceedings where possible. Consequently, the court granted the order sought by Rolls Royce PLC.

The final orders of the court were that the dismissal of the claims by non-registered group members would operate as a final determination of those claims. This decision provides a significant outcome in the context of class actions, particularly regarding the balance between procedural formalities and the practical realities of managing such proceedings.

Orders