JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 JANUARY 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 FEBRUARY 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v Commonwealth
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 31

---

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal – Negligent misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct alleged against Commonwealth – Whether conduct of the Commonwealth in promoting and administering Home Insulation Program carrying on a business or in trade or commerce – Whether no real prospect of success – Application for summary judgment dismissed.

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal – Unconscionable conduct alleged against Commonwealth – Whether plaintiffs at a special disability – Not possible to discern basis for alleged disability or how it was taken advantage of – Pleading deficient – Plaintiffs’ claim struck out with leave to re-plead.

GROUP PROCEEDINGS – Class action – Whether claims of potential group members who already entered into deed with regard to loss substantially the subject of this proceeding can be maintained – No evidence that any such potential plaintiff seeks to set deed aside – Whether ‘just and convenient’ – Group re-defined.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J Delany QC with Ms C Van Proctor	ACA Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms R M Doyle SC with Ms R L Enbom and Mr L T Brown	Australian Government Solicitors Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Test to be applied............................................................................................................................... 1

Material facts....................................................................................................................................... 1

Claims not challenged....................................................................................................................... 1

Impugned claims................................................................................................................................ 1

Negligent misrepresentation....................................................................................................... 1
Misleading or deceptive conduct............................................................................................... 1
Unconscionable conduct.............................................................................................................. 1

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Carrying on a business – s 2A.......................................................................................................... 1

Commonwealth’s submissions................................................................................................... 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Principles applying...................................................................................................................... 1

In trade or commerce......................................................................................................................... 1

Commonwealth submissions...................................................................................................... 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Principles applying...................................................................................................................... 1

Duty of care concerning statements about government policy................................................. 1

Commonwealth submissions...................................................................................................... 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Principles applying...................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 1

Whether the unconscionable conduct claim can stand............................................................... 1

Commonwealth submissions...................................................................................................... 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Principles applying...................................................................................................................... 1

The definition of the class................................................................................................................ 1

Commonwealth submissions...................................................................................................... 1
Plaintiffs’ submissions................................................................................................................. 1
Principles applying...................................................................................................................... 1

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 1

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

It is notorious that following the global financial crisis in 2008–9, the Commonwealth set up, and later shut down, a Home Insulation Program (HIP). A Royal Commission followed. Arising from the circumstances of the HIP, the plaintiffs commenced a group proceeding against the defendant pursuant to Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act1986. The first plaintiff is a roofing contractor and an installer of roof insulation. The second plaintiff manufactured insulation, including for use in retrofit installation in homes.

Pursuant to directions, the plaintiffs have served a draft further amended statement of claim. There are two applications before the court. The plaintiffs seek leave to file and serve the draft further amended…

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 Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2017] VSC 31
Case: [2017] VSC 31
Decision Date: 23 FEBRUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roo Roofing Pty Ltd, as a representative plaintiff, brought an action against the Commonwealth in relation to the Home Insulation Program. The dispute involved allegations of negligent misrepresentation, misleading and deceptive conduct, and unconscionable conduct against the Commonwealth. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing these claims.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Commonwealth's conduct in promoting and administering the Home Insulation Program constituted carrying on a business or engaging in trade or commerce, thus making the claims for negligent misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct potentially viable. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiffs were at a special disability and if their claims were deficient in this regard, and whether the potential group members who had entered into a deed with respect to their losses could maintain their claims within the framework of the class action.

The court dismissed the application for summary judgment, finding that there was a real prospect of success in the claims for negligent misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct. Regarding the unconscionable conduct claim, the court found that the pleadings were deficient as they did not sufficiently establish the special disability or how it was exploited. Consequently, this part of the claim was struck out with leave to re-plead. The court also redefined the class for the group proceeding, considering it just and convenient to do so, given that there was no evidence that any potential plaintiff sought to set aside the deed entered into previously.

The court's final orders included dismissing the application for summary judgment, striking out the claim for unconscionable conduct with leave to amend, and redefining the class for the group proceeding to include only those who had not entered into a deed with respect to their losses.

Orders