JUDGE:	Nichols J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2020, with further materials filed 17 and 27 August 2020.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd and Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 679

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Representative proceedings – Overlapping representative proceedings – Application to consolidate proceedings – Application for joint representation of plaintiffs – BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster (2019) 374 ALR 627 – Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2019) 373 ALR 323 – Wigmans v AMP Ltd [2020] HCA Trans 052 – Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd (2018) 265 FCR 1 – Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (2008) 253 ALR 65 – Perera v GetSwiftLtd (2018) 263 FCR 92 – Southernwoodv Brambles Ltd (2019) 137 ACSR 540 – Zonia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited (No 2) [2019] FCA 1061 – Pallas v Lendlease Corporation Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1631 – Exercise of power to give effect to overarching purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 33ZF.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Stallard Plaintiff	Ms F K Forsyth QC Ms E Levine	Slater and Gordon Lawyers
For the Napier Plaintiff	Mr W A D Edwards Ms A M Folie	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendant	Mr M Garner Mr G Kozminsky	Herbert Smith Freehills

HER HONOUR:

Part A – Overview

Brett Stallard and Steven Napier have each issued proceedings against Treasury Wine Estates Limited (Treasury), a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, for alleged breaches of Treasury’s continuous disclosure obligations[1] and related misleading conduct. Each is a representative proceeding issued under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) on behalf of persons who were shareholders of Treasury during the period 30 June 2018 to 28 January 2020. The proceedings concern the same causes of action, in which the factual allegations made in each claim are not identical but are substantially similar.
[1]Obligations imposed by s 674(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Each plaintiff represents an “open” class; neither proceeding is confined to group members who are represented by a particular funder or solicitor.

The question for decision in this case is whether Mr Napier and Mr Stallard (Napier and Stallard; together, the plaintiffs) should be permitted to jointly represent the class as plaintiffs in a consolidated proceeding, with their respective solicitors named on the record jointly.

It was not in dispute that the Court has power to order a consolidation of the proceedings and to appoint two firms solicitors to act on the record.…

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 Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd and Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 679
Case: [2020] VSC 679
Decision Date: 15 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stallard v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Stallard, and the defendant, Treasury Wine Estates Ltd. The case pertains to overlapping representative proceedings and was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether to consolidate two separate representative proceedings that involved overlapping claims against the same defendant. The court was required to decide whether the proceedings should be consolidated and whether the plaintiffs in the two cases should be jointly represented.

The court considered the overarching purpose of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and the relevant case law, including BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster, Wigmans v AMP Ltd, Wileypark Pty Ltd v AMP Ltd, Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd, Perera v GetSwift Ltd, Southernwood v Brambles Ltd, Zonia Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited, and Pallas v Lendlease Corporation Ltd. The court found that consolidation of the proceedings would promote efficiency and fairness, and that joint representation of the plaintiffs was appropriate. The court exercised its discretion under section 33ZF of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) to order consolidation and joint representation of the plaintiffs.

The court's decision was based on the need to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure that the parties had an opportunity to present their case in the most effective manner. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently similar to warrant consolidation, and that joint representation would not prejudice the defendant's rights. The court noted that the decision to consolidate and jointly represent the plaintiffs was not a final determination of the merits of the case, but rather a procedural decision to facilitate the efficient and fair resolution of the proceedings. The court ordered that the two representative proceedings be consolidated and that the plaintiffs be jointly represented by a single set of lawyers.

Orders