P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Multiplex Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Multiplex Limited [2007] FCA 1061

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – group proceeding – criterion for membership – all group members to retain a single litigation funder – whether criterion inconsistent with the group proceeding provisions

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 33C, 33N

Adair v The New River Company (1805) 11 Ves 429; (1805) 32 ER 1153
Basic Inc v Levinson 485 US 224 (1988)
Bright v Femcare Ltd (2002) 195 ALR 574
Campbells Cash & Carry v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) 80 ALJR 1441
Cockburn v Thompson (1809) 16 Ves 321; (1809) 33 ER 1005
Darcy v Medtel Pty Limited [2002] FCA 925
Deposit Guaranty National Bank Jackson Mississippi v Roper 445 US 326 (1980)
Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Ltd (2005) 147 FCR 394
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Carnie (1992) 29 NSWLR 382
Fine v American Solar King Corporation 919 F 2d 290, 299 (5th cir, 1990)
Marino v Esanda Ltd [1986] VR 735
Markt & Co Ltd v Knight Steamship Company Ltd [1910] 2 KB 1021
Meax v Maltby (1818) 2 Sw 277; (1818) 36 ER 621
Rod Investments (Vic) Pty Ltd v Clark [2005] VSC 449
Taylor v Salmon (1838) 4 My & Cr 134
Templeton v Leviathan Pty Ltd (1921) 30 CLR 34
United States Parole Commission v Geraghty 445 US 388 (1980)
Zentahope Pty Ltd v Bellotti (unreported, Full Court, Supreme Court of Victoria, 2 March 1992)

Calvert on Parties 2nd ed (1847)
R Mulheron, The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems – A Comparative Perspective, (2004)
D Grave and K Adams, Class Actions in Australia (2005)

J C Coffee Jr, “Class Wars:  The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action”, 95 Columbia Law Review 1343 (1995)
H Kalven Jr and M Rosenfield, “The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit”, 8 University of Chicago Law Review 684 (1940-1941)
Hon J B Weinstein, “Some Reflections on the ‘Abusiveness’ of Class Actions” 58 Federal Rules Decisions 299 (1973)
Professor Miller, “Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights:  Myth, Reality, and the ‘Class Action Problem’” 92 Harvard Law Review 664 (1979)
M Moller, “The Rule of Law Problem:  Unconstitutional Class Actions and Options for Reform” 28 Harv Journal of Law & Pub. Policy 855 (2005)
V Morabito “Class Actions: The Right to Opt Out Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)” (1993-1994) MULR 615

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Class Actions, Report No 48 (1982)
Scottish Law Commission, Multi-Party Actions:  Court Proceedings and Funding, Discussion Paper No 98 (1995)
Alberta Law Reform Institute, Class Actions, Final Report No 85 (2000)
Ireland Law Reform Commission, Consultation Paper on Multi-Party Litigation (Class Actions), Consultation Paper No 25 (2003)
V Morabito and J Epstein, Class Actions in Victoria – Time for a New Approach (1995)

P DAWSON NOMINEES PTY LTD v MULTIPLEX LIMITED and MULTIPLEX FUNDS MANAGEMENT LIMITED

VID 1380 of 2006

FINKELSTEIN J
19…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Multiplex 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
[2007] FCA 1061
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd sought to have the proceeding dismissed as it was being conducted as a group proceeding. The case involved a dispute arising from the construction of the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, with Multiplex Ltd being the primary contractor. The dispute centred around the quality of work, alleged defects, and the costs associated with rectifying these issues. The court was tasked with determining whether the proceeding should continue as a group proceeding, given the complexities and the number of parties involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceeding should be allowed to proceed as a group proceeding under the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The court had to consider whether the joinder of multiple plaintiffs under a common set of circumstances justified the continuation of the proceeding as a group proceeding, and whether this would serve the interests of justice and efficiency. The court was also required to assess whether the proceeding could be more effectively managed by dividing it into separate actions.

The court determined that the proceeding should continue as a group proceeding, finding that the joinder of multiple plaintiffs under similar circumstances was appropriate. The court held that proceeding as a group would serve the interests of justice and efficiency, avoiding the duplication of evidence and reducing the overall cost and complexity of the litigation. The court also found that the application to discontinue the proceeding as a group was not in the best interests of the parties involved. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application that the proceeding no longer continue as a group proceeding be dismissed.

2. The respondents’ pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

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

FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINKELSTEIN J

Full text does not contain this section.