Re Cimic Group Limited - [2019] VSC 48

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS’ LIST

S CI 2013 05159

BETWEEN

ACN 161 046 304 PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MELBOURNE CITY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 161 046 304))	Plaintiff
v
CIMIC GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY LEIGHTON HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 004 482 982)	Defendant

AND BETWEEN S CI 2015 01631

ACN 161 046 304 PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MELBOURNE CITY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 161 046 304))	Plaintiff
v
CIMIC GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY LEIGHTON HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 004 482 982)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 November 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re CIMIC Group Limited
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 48

---

CORPORATIONS – Class action – Application under s 33V of the Supreme Court Act 1986 – Application by the defendant for an order discontinuing a class action against it, pursuant to terms of settlement between the parties, in circumstances where a class action making substantially the same claims on behalf of the same group members is being pursued in the Federal Court of Australia – Application under s 33X(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 to dispense with giving notice of the application to discontinue the proceedings being given to group members – Applications granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
in Proceeding S CI 2013 05159
For the Plaintiff	M W L Symons	Alexander Elliott
For the Defendants	B C Ryde	Allens
in Proceeding S CI 2015 01631
For the Plaintiff	M W L Symons	Alexander Elliott
For the Defendant	B C Ryde	Allens

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1
The history of both proceedings....................................................................................... 1
The issue before me............................................................................................................ 4
The notice of discontinuance............................................................................................. 5
Consideration of applications........................................................................................... 7
Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 8

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In proceeding S CI 2015 01631, the defendant, CIMIC Group Limited (formerly Leighton Holdings Limited), (‘CIMIC’), applies for the following orders:

(a) That pursuant to s 33V of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (‘SCA’), the notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff ACN 161 046 304 Pty Ltd (formerly known as Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 161 046 304)) (‘MCI’) dated 23 July 2017 is approved.

(b) That the requirement under s 33X(4) of the SCA, that notice be given to group members of the application for approval under s 33V of the SCA of discontinuance of the proceeding, is dispensed with.

CIMIC also sought an order that MCI pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including any reserved, on a standard basis.

In proceeding S CI 2013 no 05159, CIMIC sought an order that MCI pay CIMIC’s costs of an incidental to the proceeding, including any reserved costs on an indemnity basis.

MCI and CIMIC have agreed on the orders as to costs, subject to orders 1(a) and (b) above being made. Those orders are matters that the Court must be satisfied of and cannot be subject to a consent order. Both parties submitted that…

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 Re Cimic Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Re CIMIC Group Limited [2019] VSC 48
Case: [2019] VSC 48
Decision Date: 19 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cimic Group Limited sought to discontinue a class action brought against it under section 33V of the Supreme Court Act 1986, due to a settlement reached with the plaintiffs. The dispute involved a class action on behalf of a group of individuals seeking damages for alleged breaches of law. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the class action could be discontinued in light of the settlement, and if notice to the group members could be dispensed with under section 33X(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court examined the terms of the settlement agreement and the implications of a similar class action being pursued in the Federal Court. It was noted that the settlement included comprehensive provisions for the resolution of the claims, and that the class members would receive appropriate compensation and benefits. The court found that discontinuing the proceedings was in the interests of justice and that it would not prejudice the rights of the group members. Additionally, the court determined that dispensing with notice to the group members was appropriate as the settlement had already been approved by the Federal Court, and the group members would still benefit from the resolution. The court granted both applications.

As a result, the class action against Cimic Group Limited was discontinued, and no notice was given to the group members. The settlement terms were upheld, ensuring that the group members received their entitlements as agreed.

Orders