Lay v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (Settlement Distribution)

In the case of Lay v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (Settlement Distribution), the primary issue was the approval of a scheme for the distribution of settlement proceeds in a representative proceeding. This followed the earlier approval of the settlement itself, as detailed in the Settlement Judgment. The court was required to decide on the justness of deductions proposed to be made from the settlement proceeds, including those for legal costs and fees claimed by the litigation funder and solicitors. This decision came after a referee had been appointed to report on the reasonableness of legal costs, and the report had been adopted by the court.

The court carefully considered the objections raised by Mr Daniel Aristabulus Sanda, who was one of the group members, to the proposed deductions. Specifically, the court examined whether the report of the referee, Ms Kerrie-Ann Rosati, should be adopted, whether the fees claimed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers Pty Limited (MBL) for certain interlocutory applications were justified, and whether the amounts proposed by the litigation funder, Harbour Fund II, LP (Harbour), were fair. The court adopted the referee’s report with minor exceptions, approved the proposed deductions for legal costs and fees, and made orders to initiate a competitive tender process for the appointment of a scheme administrator. Additionally, the court made orders to maintain confidentiality of certain sensitive information and set a deadline for the referral of a specific question regarding the costs incurred by Harbour.

The court's decision was grounded in the need to ensure the inexpensive and efficient resolution of the proceedings, consistent with the overarching purpose of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The court's orders approved the settlement scheme, approved specific deductions from the settlement distribution fund, and set out procedures for a tender process for the appointment of a scheme administrator. Furthermore, confidentiality orders were imposed to protect sensitive information and were to be lifted upon the expiration of any appeal period. Finally, the court ordered a reference for the tender process and directed that certain materials be submitted to the referee.