Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 6) - [2017] NSWSC 1288

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1288
Hearing dates: 21 September 2017
Date of orders: 21 September 2017
Decision date: 21 September 2017
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 on board QF32 on 4 November 2010 who have not, in accordance with the orders made on 1 June 2016, filed and served their statement of particulars and served their evidence in support of their claim for compensation for psychological injury and who are listed in Annexure “A” to the orders made on 4 September 2017, be dismissed pursuant to s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).
(2) Order that the above dismissal of claims is to operate as a final determination of the rights of the individual group members, listed in Annexure “A” to the orders made on 4 September 2017, to claim damages or other relief against the defendant arising out of the events on board QF32 on 4 November 2010.
Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE ACTION – group defined as passengers who suffered psychological injury on flight due to allegedly faulty engine – most claims settled – application to dismiss claims of group members who have not provided particulars of their loss – application granted
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 183, 175(1)(b)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 15/12
Cases Cited: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805
Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83
Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1332
Matthews v SVI Electricity Pty Limited (2013) 39 VR 255; [2013] VSC 17-23
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Sandy Lam (Plaintiff)
Rolls Royce PLC (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hyland, solicitor (Plaintiff)
N Chen SC; D Stretton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
LHD lawyers (Plaintiff)
HFW Australia (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/37342

EX TEMPORE Judgment

This judgment concerns an application by the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC, "Rolls Royce", for the dismissal of the claim of some group members in a representative action who have registered their claims but have not pursued them. In particular, they have not, as they were required to do, filed particulars of their claims.
The nature of these proceedings was described in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805 at [3] to [5]. Rolls Royce is sued as the entity said to be responsible for the manufacture of an engine that is alleged to have failed on Qantas flight QF32 that departed from Changi Airport in Singapore on 4 November 2010. The action has been brought on behalf of persons who were aboard that flight and who have suffered 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 that group have been reduced for a number of reasons which…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1288
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1288
Decision Date: 21 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lam v Rolls Royce Plc (No 6) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Lam, represents a group of passengers who claimed to have suffered psychological injury on a flight due to an allegedly faulty engine manufactured by Rolls Royce. Most of the claims were settled, leaving a small group of claimants who had not provided particulars of their loss. Rolls Royce applied to dismiss the claims of these remaining group members, and the court granted the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the claims of the remaining group members could proceed without detailed particulars of their alleged loss. The court had to consider the principles governing representative actions, particularly those related to the disclosure of individual losses within a class action. Rolls Royce argued that without particulars, it was impossible to assess the validity or extent of the claims, which would make it unjust to proceed with the litigation. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules and case law concerning the necessity of particulars in class actions.

In its decision, the court held that for the remaining group members' claims to proceed, they must provide sufficient particulars of their loss. The court reasoned that without these details, it was not possible to determine whether the claims were genuine or to assess the appropriate remedy. The court found that the lack of particulars rendered the claims unmanageable and unjust to proceed with, especially given that most other claims had been settled. Consequently, the court granted Rolls Royce's application to dismiss the claims of the group members who failed to provide the required particulars.

The final orders of the court were that the claims of the group members who did not provide particulars of their loss were to be dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of detailed particulars in class actions and the court's role in ensuring that litigation is conducted fairly and justly.

Orders