Reilly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

The case of Reilly v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited involved proceedings concerning a credit insurance policy. The applicant, Reilly, sought relief against the ANZ Bank in relation to the administration of credit insurance policies. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with addressing several legal issues pertaining to the case management of the proceeding, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on legal proceedings. The primary issues before the court were the establishment of a timetable for the completion of pleadings and discovery, the issuance of a notice regarding the commencement of the proceeding and the rights of group members to opt out, and the overall case management of the proceeding.

The court found that, while the claims in Reilly's proceeding were materially similar to those in another proceeding involving Westpac, the proceedings themselves were not connected. As such, the court decided not to formally order the consolidation of the proceedings at that time. However, the court did align the timetables of the two proceedings to facilitate efficient case management. The court emphasised the need for flexibility in managing the proceedings, recognising that different issues may arise depending on the respondents' responses to the claims. The court also acknowledged the impact of COVID-19 on legal practitioners and litigants and made orders to accommodate these circumstances. This included allowing for potential difficulties in complying with the timetable and encouraging parties to discuss such issues with one another and approach the court as necessary.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for efficient case management while also considering the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court ultimately decided to make orders that aligned the timetables of the two proceedings, encouraged collaboration between the parties, and provided flexibility to accommodate the pandemic's impact on legal proceedings. The court also emphasised the importance of communication between the parties and the court in addressing any difficulties that may arise in complying with the orders.

The final orders made by the court included specific deadlines for the filing and serving of defences, replies, initial discovery, and affidavits. The court also required the parties to confer and attempt to agree on proposed forms of orders for discovery and the notice of commencement of the proceeding. If the parties could not reach an agreement, they were required to file supporting outlines of submissions and affidavits. The court set a further case management hearing and granted liberty to apply on short notice. Costs were reserved for later determination.