Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership

In the case of Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with approving a settlement of two representative proceedings. The lead applicants alleged they did not receive their full entitlements under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 for the hours worked in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was required to determine whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable for the group members and if the legal costs claimed by the lead applicants' lawyers were lawful and reasonable. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the costs were in excess of what could be lawfully claimed under the Legal Profession Act 2006 and whether the lawyers' retainer was void due to non-compliance with these laws.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair and reasonable, but it was not satisfied with the quantum of legal costs claimed by the lead applicants. The court found that the cost estimates provided by the lead applicants' lawyers were excessively high and did not align with the work performed. The court also highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in the claims for legal costs in class actions, particularly within the statutory context of the Fair Work Act 2009. Given these concerns, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lower costs amount, which was consistent with the settlement agreement between the parties. The court approved the settlement but reduced the legal costs to a sum it deemed reasonable, and the lead applicants, the respondents, and the interested non-party were given liberty to apply to vary the amount fixed.

The court's final orders approved the settlement subject to specific conditions, including the appointment of Adero Law as the Settlement Administrator and the fixing of a lower costs amount. The court also imposed confidentiality orders on certain documentary material to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Additionally, the court extended the time for one objector to opt out of the proceedings and allowed for ancillary and consequential orders to be applied for by the parties.