Singh v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd - [2025] VSC 508

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2024 04990

PAPINDER SINGH	First Plaintiff
CONSTANTINOS DAGLAS	Second Plaintiff
v
HARVEY NORMAN HOLDINGS LTD (ACN 003 237 545)	First Defendant
YOOGALU PTY LTD (ACN 002 269 132)	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Harris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 August 2025
DATE OF RULING:	26 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Singh & Anor v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 508

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceeding – Application for substitution of first lead plaintiff – Whether substitution of plaintiff is appropriate in the circumstances – Whether substitution will cause any real prejudice to the defendants – Supreme Court Act 1986, ss 33T, 33ZF, 33Z(1)(g).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Confidentiality orders sought – Matters confidential and privileged – Supreme Court Act 1986, s 33ZF, Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 28.05(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr D Fahey with Mr J Page	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendants	Ms M Salinger	Arnold Bloch Leibler

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

The proposed substitution............................................................................................................... 2

The power to make a substitution order....................................................................................... 2

The statutory sources of power................................................................................................... 2
There is power to order substitution in this case..................................................................... 5

Substitution is appropriate.............................................................................................................. 7

Conclusion – it is appropriate to make the orders sought....................................................... 10

Confidentiality and procedural orders........................................................................................ 10

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The first plaintiff, Papinder Singh brought proceedings in this Court[1] against Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd and Yoogalu Pty Ltd arising out of his purchase of a product called ‘Product Care’, which is in the nature of an extended warranty. The second plaintiff, Constantinos Daglas, originally issued proceedings against the same defendants in the Federal Court, based also on his purchase of Product Care.[2] Those proceedings were transferred to this Court[3] and on 29 May 2025, I made orders that the proceedings be consolidated and identified as Singh and Daglas v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd & Anor (S ECI 2024 04990) (the Consolidated Proceeding).[4]
[1]Singh v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd & Anor (S ECI 2024 04990).
[2]Federal Court proceeding VID943/2024 Constantinos Daglas v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd & Anor.
[3]Constantinos Daglas v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd & Anor (S ECI 2025 01528).
[4]Singh v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd; Daglas v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd [2025] VSC 290.

An application is brought by a group member in the Consolidated Proceeding, Mr Jonathan Wong, with the plaintiffs,[5] for an order pursuant to ss 33T(1) and/or 33ZF of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) that Mr Wong be substituted for Mr Singh as the first plaintiff in the Consolidated Proceeding.
[5]To whom I refer jointly as the plaintiffs in this ruling, for convenience.

The defendants in the Consolidated Proceeding do not consent to, nor oppose, the proposed substitution application.

Background

On 23 June 2025, Mr Singh instructed his solicitors, Maurice Blackburn, 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 508
Decision Date: 26 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Singh v Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd, the plaintiff sought to substitute himself as the first lead plaintiff in a group proceeding. The defendants, Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd, opposed the application on the grounds that the substitution would cause them real prejudice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court included whether the substitution of the plaintiff was appropriate and whether the substitution would cause any real prejudice to the defendants.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The court found that the plaintiff met the criteria for substitution, including the requirement that the substitute plaintiff was a member of the class of persons whose interests were to be protected or represented. The court also found that the substitution would not cause any real prejudice to the defendants, as they had been made aware of the potential substitution and had not raised any objections. The court noted that the defendants had been given sufficient time to prepare for the substitution and that the substitution would not result in any significant change to the nature of the proceeding.

The court ultimately granted the application for substitution of the plaintiff. The court also considered the application for confidentiality orders sought by the plaintiff and found that certain matters were confidential and privileged. The court made orders that certain documents and information were to be kept confidential and privileged. The court found that the orders were necessary to protect the interests of the class members and to ensure that the proceeding was conducted fairly and efficiently.

The final orders of the court included the substitution of the plaintiff as the first lead plaintiff in the group proceeding and the making of confidentiality orders in relation to certain documents and information. The court noted that the orders were necessary to ensure the fair and efficient conduct of the proceeding and to protect the interests of the class members.

Orders