Leonie's Travel Pty Limited v Air New Zealand

Case [2013] FCA 73


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Leonie’s Travel Pty Limited v Air New Zealand Ltd [2013] FCA 73

Citation: Leonie’s Travel Pty Limited v Air New Zealand [2013] FCA 73
Parties: LEONIE’S TRAVEL PTY LIMITED ACN 050 214 152 v AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)
File number: NSD 2449 of 2006
Judge: ROBERTSON J
Date of judgment: 7 February 2013
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – approval of settlement judgment

COSTS –  

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s 33V
Date of hearing: 7 February 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr NJ Beaumont
Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr RR Stitt QC with Ms CO Gleeson
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 2449 of 2006

BETWEEN:

LEONIE'S TRAVEL PTY LIMITED ACN 050 214 152
Applicant

AND:

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (the Act) the Court approves the settlement contained in the Deed of Settlement of the proceedings between the Applicant and 73the Fourth Respondent on the terms set out in the Deed of Settlement, a copy of which is exhibited to the affidavit of Steven Lewis sworn 4 February 2013 (the Deed).

2.Pursuant to s 33ZB and s 33SZF of the Act, the Court declares that the persons affected and bound by these orders are the Applicant, the Fourth Respondent and all other group members who have not opted out under s 33J of the Act.

3.Pursuant to s 33ZF of the Act or otherwise, the Applicant be authorised nunc pro tunc on behalf of group members described in Order 2 to enter into and give effect to the Deed and the transactions thereby contemplated for and on behalf of those group members.

4.Pursuant to s 33ZF of the Act, any group member who has not opted out under s 33J of the Act (whether or not the group member is entitled to participate in the settlement contained in the Deed and approved by the Court) is hereby barred from making any claim (other than any proceeding to enforce the Deed) against the Fourth Respondent in respect of or relating to the subject matter of these proceedings.

5.Pursuant to s 33Z and s 33V(2) of the Act, the Court approves the payment by the Fourth Respondent to the solicitors for the Applicant, Slater & Gordon, of the sum of $37,141.00 in full and final settlement of all claims by the Applicant and all Group Members for distribution by Slater & Gordon to eligible group members pursuant to the Deed in accordance with its terms.

6.The Applicant’s legal representatives return all documents to the Fourth Respondent’s legal representatives that are affected by the confidentiality undertakings executed on 14 February 2012, 31 August 2012 and 17 October 2012 within 14 days of these orders or within 14 days of the Court issuing a certificate of taxation, which ever is the later.

7.The Fourth Respondent will pay the Applicant’s costs as taxed or agreed (including reserved costs) of these proceedings as between the parties and of no other Respondent on a party and party basis and that:

7.1The indemnity principle will apply to the recovery of those costs, including on a taxation if they cannot be agreed;

7.2The Applicant will claim no costs or expenses incurred in the proceedings between 23 July 2007 and 3 August 2011;

7.3The Applicant will claim no disbursements for counsel’s fees incurred prior to 3 August 2011 or in respect of any work carried out by Counsel prior to 3 August 2011.

8.The proceeding as between the Applicant and the Fourth Respondent be otherwise dismissed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 2449 of 2006

BETWEEN:

LEONIE'S TRAVEL PTY LIMITED ACN 050 214 152
Applicant

AND:

AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

ROBERTSON J

DATE:

7 FEBRUARY 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The parties seek the approval of the Court under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to settle this representative proceeding which has been on foot since 2006.

  2. Two affidavits by Mr Steven Lewis, sworn on 11 December 2012 and 4 February 2013 have been read on behalf of the applicant and an affidavit sworn by Michelle Margaret Carr on 12 December 2012 has been read on behalf of the fourth respondent, the only remaining respondent in the proceedings.

  3. I approve the settlement of the proceeding. I find that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable having regard to the claims made on behalf of the group members who will be bound by the settlement. I also find that the proposed settlement has been undertaken in the interests of group members, as well as those of the applicant, and not just in the interests of the applicant and the fourth respondent: see Practice Note CM 17 dated 1 August 2011, especially at clause 11.1.

  4. I have had regard in particular to the stage which the litigation has reached; the complexity and likely further duration of the litigation; the fact that there is no opposition to the settlement; and the manner of calculation and the reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best recovery, having regard to the risks of litigation.

  5. For these reasons I make the orders set out in the document entitled Final Orders which I initial and place with the papers on the Court file.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Robertson.

Associate:

Dated:       7 February 2013

Details
AGLC
Leonie's Travel Pty Limited v Air New Zealand [2013] FCA 73
Case
[2013] FCA 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Leonie's Travel Pty Limited v Air New Zealand Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to approve a settlement agreement between the parties. The dispute originated from a representative proceeding initiated in 2006 by Leonie's Travel Pty Limited against Air New Zealand Ltd. The court was tasked with determining the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement agreement, which involved the distribution of a settlement fund to eligible group members. The court had to consider various factors, including the stage of the litigation, the complexity of the case, the lack of opposition to the settlement, and the risks associated with continuing the litigation.

The legal issues before the court centered on whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of all group members. The court examined the settlement's terms, the stage of the litigation, the complexity and duration of the case, and the absence of opposition to the settlement. Furthermore, the court assessed the reasonableness of the settlement amount and whether it represented the best recovery for the group members, considering the litigation risks.

Justice Robertson approved the settlement agreement, finding it fair and reasonable. The court considered the stage of the litigation, the complexity of the case, the lack of opposition, and the reasonableness of the settlement amount. The court also noted that the settlement was in the interests of the group members and not solely in the interests of the parties involved. The court's decision was informed by Practice Note CM 17, which outlines the criteria for approving settlements in representative proceedings.

The court made several orders to give effect to the settlement agreement. These orders included approval of the settlement terms, declaration of the persons bound by the orders, authorisation for the applicant to act on behalf of group members, barring of non-opted-out group members from making claims against the respondent, approval of the payment to the applicant's solicitors, and dismissal of the proceedings. The court also ordered the return of certain documents to the respondent's legal representatives and addressed the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.