FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Modtech Engineering Pty Limited v GPT Management Holdings Limited
[2013] FCA 626
Citation: Modtech Engineering Pty Limited v GPT Management Holdings Limited [2013] FCA 626 Parties: MODTECH ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 993 022) v GPT MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 113 510 188) and GPT RE LIMITED (ACN 107 426 504) File number: VID 1408 of 2011 Judge: GORDON J Date of judgment: 21 June 2013 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – representative proceeding under Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33V and 33ZF – Court approval of settlement – fairness and reasonableness of terms of settlement – global settlement – assessment of reasonableness of legal fees – assessment of reasonableness of funding commission uplift – public interest in facilitation of fair and reasonable settlement Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)Cases cited: AGC (Advances) Ltd v West; AGC (Advances) Ltd v Cranston (1984) 5 NSWLR 301
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chats House Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 250
Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club Ltd v Alleasing Finance Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 1112
Darwalla Milling Co Pty Ltd v F Hoffman-La Roche Limited (No 2) (2006) 236 ALR 322
Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Limited [2009] FCA 19
Hadchiti v Nufarm Limited [2012] FCA 1524
Haslam v Money For Living (Aust) Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2007] FCA 897
Hobbs Anderson Investments Pty Limited v Oz Minerals Limited [2011] FCA 801
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (1999) 94 FCR 167
Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 6) [2012] FCA 650
Lopez v Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 104
Madgwick v Kelly [2013] FCAFC 61
Milfull v Terranora Lakes Country Club Ltd [2006] FCA 801
Pathway Investments Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (No 3) [2012] VSC 625
Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 6) [2011] FCA 277
Re Korda; in the matter of Stockford Ltd (2004) 140 FCR 424
Re Medforce Healthcare Services Ltd (In Liq) [2001] 3 NZLR 145
Redfern v Mineral Engineers Pty Ltd [1987] VR 518
Richards v Macquarie Bank Limited (No 4) [2013] FCA 438
Taylor v Telstra CorporationLtd [2007] FCA 2008
Venetian Nominees v Conlan (1998) 20 WAR 96
Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 4) (2000) 180 ALR 459Dal Pont GE, Law of Costs (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003)
Quick R, Garnsworthy D and Harris E, Quick on Costs (Thomson Reuters, subscription service)Date of hearing: 20 June 2013 Date of last submissions: 20 June 2013 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 74 Counsel for the Applicant: Dr M Collins SC and Mr A Nash Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon Counsel for the Respondents: Mr C Moore SC Solicitor for the Respondents: Herbert Smith Freehills
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 1408 of 2011
BETWEEN: MODTECH ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 993 022)
Applicant
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Modtech Engineering Pty Ltd v GPT Management Holdings Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] FCA 626
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the evidence provided by the parties and considered the public interest in facilitating fair and reasonable settlements. The Court found that the Settlement Distribution Scheme needed to be amended to address the change in the way in which the Applicant’s Expense Claim was to be addressed. The Court concluded that the parties should file a minute of proposed orders together with an amended Settlement Distribution Scheme by 4:00pm on 25 June 2013, to give effect to the Court’s reasons for judgment. The Court also directed that the Registrar(s) should provide the necessary reports to the Court by no later than 26 July 2013.
The Court made confidentiality orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in relation to identified affidavits and directed that certain evidence be kept confidential on the Court file and not disclosed to any other parties or persons without the express consent of the parties or order of the Court. The Court noted that the entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to further order, pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act), and on the ground that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the following evidence is to remain confidential on the Court file and is not to be disclosed to any other parties or persons without the express consent of the parties or order of this Court:
(a) the Affidavit of Benjamin James Yang Phi affirmed on 13 June 2013 and its annexures;
(b) the Affidavit of Benjamin James Yang Phi affirmed on 19 June 2013 and its annexures; and
(c) paragraph 8 of the Affidavit of Benjamin James Yang Phi affirmed on 19 June 2013.
2. By 4:00pm on 25 June 2013, the parties file a minute of proposed orders together with an amended Settlement Distribution Scheme to give effect to these reasons for judgment.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.