Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 5)

The dispute in Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 5) was between the plaintiff, Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater. The case arose out of the Brisbane floods and involved a class action on behalf of property owners who suffered damage as a result of the flooding. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining several legal issues concerning the conduct of the class action.

The primary legal issues were whether the plaintiff was required to plead its claim on behalf of all group members, the approach to determining common questions to be resolved, and the specification of sample members of the group who suffered particular categories of loss. The court also considered whether the sample group member from specific locations should be identified, the appropriate standard for breach of duty of care, and the form of opt-out notices for group members. Additionally, the court addressed the common questions concerning the claim for nuisance and trespass.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff was not required to plead its claim on behalf of all group members but instead needed to identify common questions of law and fact that were common to the group. The court clarified that these questions should not be substituted for pleading and that it was not precluded from parties ultimately submitting no common answer. The court also noted that questions should not be subject to construction arguments. Regarding the identification of sample group members, the court held that the plaintiff was not required to identify sample group members who suffered particular categories of loss or from particular locations. The court further specified that the appropriate standard for breach of duty of care should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the court held that the form of opt-out notices should be clear and unambiguous.

The court made several orders, including that the plaintiff was not required to plead its claim on behalf of all group members, that the common questions of law and fact should be identified, and that the identification of sample group members was not necessary. The court also held that the appropriate standard for breach of duty of care should be determined on a case-by-case basis and that the form of opt-out notices should be clear and unambiguous.