Legal Research
Cases
Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited

Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited

Case [2025] VSC 368 24 June 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

GROUP PROCEEDINGS LIST

S ECI 2020 01590

BRETT STALLARD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STALLARD SUPERANNUATION FUND	First Plaintiff
STEVEN NAPIER	Second Plaintiff
v
TREASURY WINE ESTATES LIMITED (ACN 004 373 862)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 May 2025, with written submissions received on 2 June 2025 and 4 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 368

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Group proceeding – Application for approval of settlement of group proceeding – Whether terms of settlement fair and reasonable – Whether settlement distribution scheme fair and reasonable – Whether claim for legal fees and disbursements fair and reasonable – Settlement approved – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Part 4A, ss 33V, 33ZF – Legal Profession Uniform Law s 182.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by eight unregistered group members for leave to participate in the settlement – Adequacy of reasons for failure to register claims by registration deadline – Two applications by unregistered group members granted.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Plaintiffs

Ms M Szydzik SC with

Mr T Chalke and Mr T Rawlinson

Slater and Gordon
Maurice Blackburn

For the Defendant

Mr D Batt KC with
Ms J Elliott

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 31 March 2020, Mr Brett Stallard (as trustee for the Stallard Superannuation Fund) commenced proceeding S ECI 2020 01590 (‘Stallard Proceeding’). On 1 May 2020, Mr Steven Napier commenced proceeding S ECI 2020 01983 (‘Napier Proceeding’). On 15 October 2020, Nichols J made orders consolidating the two proceedings and appointing Mr Stallard and Mr Napier as joint plaintiffs and their respective solicitors, Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn, as jointly named solicitors on the record.[1]
[1]Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd and Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 679.

On 14 October 2024, the day the trial was due to commence, the parties announced that an in-principle settlement had been reached. A settlement deed was executed by the parties on 21 February 2025 (‘Deed’). The parties propose to settle the proceeding on terms that Treasury pay $65 million inclusive of costs and interest (‘Settlement Sum’) without admission of liability.

The parties have applied to the Court for approval of the proposed settlement under s 33V and s 33ZF of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (‘Act’). For the reasons set out in this judgment:

(a) the proposed settlement will be approved;

(b) the proposed orders regarding the Settlement Distribution Scheme (‘SDS’) and the appointment of Slater and Gordon as administrator of the SDS will be approved; and

(c) the proposed deductions from the Settlement Sum will be approved.

Summary of the claims

The defendant (‘Treasury’) operates a global winemaking and distribution business. It is listed on…

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 Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited

Details

AGLC: Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2025] VSC 368
Case: [2025] VSC 368
Decision Date: 24 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Limited involved a group proceeding where multiple plaintiffs sought damages against Treasury Wine Estates Limited for alleged breaches of Australian consumer law. The dispute was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on the approval of a settlement reached between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that the settlement terms were fair and reasonable, while the defendant contested certain aspects of the settlement, particularly the distribution scheme and the claim for legal fees and disbursements.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the settlement terms were fair and reasonable, if the distribution scheme was equitable, and if the claim for legal fees and disbursements was justified. The court also needed to consider applications by eight unregistered group members who sought leave to participate in the settlement. The unregistered members argued that they should be allowed to join the proceeding despite missing the registration deadline because of the inadequacy of the reasons provided for their exclusion.

The court, in its reasoning, concluded that the settlement terms were fair and reasonable, and the distribution scheme was equitable. The court also found that the claim for legal fees and disbursements was justified. Regarding the applications by the unregistered group members, the court determined that two of the applicants should be granted leave to participate in the settlement due to the inadequacy of the reasons for their initial exclusion. The court approved the settlement in light of these findings.

The court's final orders included the approval of the settlement, the allowance of two unregistered group members to participate in the settlement, and the direction that the settlement be implemented in accordance with the court's approval.

Orders