Nathan v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 594

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2020 03924

DAIMIN NATHAN	First Plaintiff
TANIA NATHAN	Second Plaintiff
v
MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD (ACN 002 674 982)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Harris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Nathan v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 594

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Group Proceeding — Application for approval of settlement of group proceeding — Whether confidentiality orders should be made — Whether settlement distribution scheme is fair and reasonable — Settlement distribution between classes of group members — Deductions from the settlement fund — Whether group costs order should be varied — Settlement approved — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, ss 33V, 33ZDA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	D Fahey with M Bui	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendant	S Gerber	Gilbert + Tobin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The nature of the claims in the proceeding.................................................................................. 1

Relevant procedural background.................................................................................................... 5

Group costs order.......................................................................................................................... 5
Opt out and registration............................................................................................................... 6
Mediation....................................................................................................................................... 6
Trial and settlement...................................................................................................................... 6

Reinstatements and late registrations............................................................................................ 7

Confidentiality orders....................................................................................................................... 9

Applicable principles...................................................................................................................... 12

The proposed settlement................................................................................................................ 13

Loss Assessment Formula.......................................................................................................... 17

Was the settlement fair and reasonable? .................................................................................... 19

Fairness inter partes..................................................................................................................... 19
Fairness inter se............................................................................................................................ 20
Other matters relevant to the distribution of the settlement sum....................................... 21

Deductions from the Settlement Sum.......................................................................................... 22

Group costs order........................................................................................................................ 22
Considerations on whether the group costs order should be varied......................... 23
The reasons for making the group costs order.............................................................. 24
The plaintiffs’ submissions – there is no reason to vary the group costs order....... 25
Conclusion – there is no reason to vary the group costs order................................... 27

The appointment of the Scheme Administrator..................................................................... 28
The costs of the settlement administration.............................................................................. 29
Compensation payment to Tania and Daimin Nathan, the representative plaintiffs...... 30

Conclusion – the orders proposed by the plaintiffs and supported by the defendant were appropriate.................................................................................................................................. 32

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiffs, Tania and Daimin Nathan, brought this group proceeding on behalf of group members who entered into car loans with the defendant, Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd, that was arranged through car dealers.[1] The group members claim to have suffered loss because of the effect of undisclosed ‘flex commissions’ paid by Macquarie to the dealers.[2] In substance, the plaintiffs’ claim was that the arrangement permitted the dealers to set an interest rate at their discretion on car loans, which was above a base rate identified by Macquarie. Macquarie would then pay the dealer a commission on the difference between the base rate and the interest rate set by the dealer. This undisclosed commission had the effect of inflating the interest rate paid on the loan.
[1]Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim filed on 28 August 2024, [1].
[2]The group is defined to be persons who entered into such loans between 1 March 2013 and 31 October 2018. Affidavit…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nathan v Macquarie Leasing Pty 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 594
Decision Date: 19 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nathan v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd, the dispute involved the approval of a settlement of a group proceeding. The applicants sought the court's approval of a settlement between the defendant and the class members of a group proceeding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to decide whether confidentiality orders should be made in relation to the settlement and whether the distribution scheme of the settlement fund was fair and reasonable. The court also had to consider the deductions from the settlement fund and whether the group costs order should be varied. The applicants argued that the settlement was fair and reasonable and that the deductions from the settlement fund were justified.

The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and the distribution scheme was appropriate. The court also found that the deductions from the settlement fund were reasonable and necessary to cover the costs of the group proceeding. The court approved the settlement and made orders for confidentiality and the distribution of the settlement fund. The court also varied the group costs order to reflect the deductions from the settlement fund.

The court approved the settlement and made orders for confidentiality and the distribution of the settlement fund. The court also varied the group costs order to reflect the deductions from the settlement fund. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and the distribution scheme was appropriate. The court also found that the deductions from the settlement fund were reasonable and necessary to cover the costs of the group proceeding. The settlement was approved, and the orders were made in accordance with the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, ss 33V, 33ZDA.

Orders