Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure)

In Parkin v Boral Limited, the Federal Court of Australia addressed two pivotal questions concerning class closure orders in the context of a class action proceeding. The first question revolved around whether the Court had the authority under section 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to order that group members who neither registered nor opted out by a specified date would remain group members but would be barred from seeking any benefit from a settlement reached before final judgment. The second question inquired whether the Court had the power under section 33X(5) to mandate that group members must register or opt out by a certain date and to notify them that the applicant intended to seek an order excluding non-opting and non-registering group members from benefiting from any settlement before final judgment. The court's decision was grounded in the origins and distinctions between "hard closure" and "soft closure" orders, drawing on precedents such as Haselhurst v Toyota and Wigmans v AMP Ltd.

The Court examined the legislative framework and the rationale behind class closure orders, highlighting the importance of facilitating settlements and achieving finality in class actions. The reasoning underscored that the proposed orders did not extinguish the rights of group members but rather provided notice of the potential exclusion from benefits if they did not register or opt out. The court concluded that the orders were within the power of the Court, subject to the group members' claims being determined at the time of settlement approval or judgment and the making of an order under section 33ZB. The final orders affirmed the Court's power to approve the notice under section 33X(5) but did not find the power under section 33ZF to be applicable in the specific context of this case.