JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 596 (Revised 23 September 2025)

---

REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS — Part 4A Group proceeding — Application for approval of settlement — Whether settlement is fair and reasonable as between the parties and as between group members — Shareholder class action — Alleged breach of continuous disclosure obligations — Financial circumstances of the company — Payment of settlement sum in instalments — Settlement approved — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, ss 33V, 33ZF — Botsman v Bolitho (No 1) [2018] 57 VR 68, Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman‑La Roche Ltd (No 2) (2006) 236 ALR 322, Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liq) (No 4) (2016) 335 ALR 439, applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Part 4A Group proceeding — Application for approval of settlement — Soft class closure order — Proceeding settled at mediation —Applications for late registration to permit participation in the settlement — All applications approved — Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others (Settlement Approval) [2024] VSC 733, applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Part 4A Group proceeding — Approval for payment of legal costs from settlement sum — No reason to vary group costs order — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, s 33ZDA — Fox v Westpac Banking Corporation (2021) 69 VR 487, Allen & Anor v G8 Education Ltd (No 4) [2024] VSC 487, applied — Fuller & Anor v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & Anor (Settlement Approval) [2025] VSC 160, McCoy v Hino Motors Ltd(No 2) [2025] VSC 553, discussed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Part 4A Group proceeding — Appointment of Scheme Administrator — Approval for payment of costs of administering settlement distribution scheme.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms R Howe Mr T Rawlinson	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendant	Mr K Loxley Mr H Whitwell	HSF Kramer
For Maurice Blackburn as Intervenor	Mr A Hochroth	Maurice Blackburn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

B. Background to the proceeding.................................................................................................... 3

C. Steps taken in the proceeding.................................................................................................... 4

D. Approval of Settlement – Governing Principles.................................................................... 5

E. Is the settlement fair and reasonable as between the parties?............................................. 7

F. Is the settlement reasonable as between the group members?........................................... 12

G. Objections.................................................................................................................................... 16

H. Should unregistered group members be permitted to participate?.................................. 16

I. Legal Costs..................................................................................................................................... 18

J. Administration Costs................................................................................................................... 29

K. Plaintiff reimbursement payment........................................................................................... 33

HER HONOUR:

A. Introduction

This proceeding is a securities class action issued under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (Act) on behalf of all persons who acquired an interest in fully paid ordinary shares in…

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 Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd [2025] VSC 596
Case: [2025] VSC 596
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd, the applicant sought approval for a settlement of a group proceeding brought on behalf of shareholders against Crown Resorts Ltd. The claim alleged breaches of continuous disclosure obligations concerning the financial circumstances of the company. The application before the Court was for approval of the settlement terms, including the payment of the settlement sum in instalments, and for an order permitting late registration of group members to participate in the settlement.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the settlement was fair and reasonable as between the parties and as between the group members. The Court considered the principles established in Botsman v Bolitho (No 1) and Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman‑La Roche Ltd (No 2), and examined whether the settlement provided a just outcome for the shareholders. The Court also assessed the fairness of the proposed payment plan for the settlement sum, considering the financial implications for the shareholders.

The Court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable. It concluded that the settlement provided a pragmatic resolution for the group members and that the payment plan was appropriate. The Court approved the settlement, noting the benefits of finality and the avoidance of protracted litigation. The Court also approved the applications for late registration, following the decision in Andrianakis v Uber Technologies Inc and Others. Additionally, the Court found no reason to vary the group costs order and approved the payment of legal costs from the settlement sum, in line with Fox v Westpac Banking Corporation and Allen & Anor v G8 Education Ltd (No 4). The Court also approved the appointment of a Scheme Administrator and the payment of costs associated with administering the settlement distribution scheme.

The Court made orders approving the settlement, permitting late registration, approving the payment of legal costs, and approving the payment of costs associated with administering the settlement distribution scheme.

Orders