Winterford v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd - [2012] FCA 1199

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Winterford v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1199

Citation: Winterford v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1199

Parties:
IAN WINTERFORD v PFIZER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 422 348)

RODNEY COLLIN v ASPEN PHARMACARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 096 236 985) and ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 233 992)

File number(s): VID 4 of 2010
VID 5 of 2010

Judge: BROMBERG J

Date of judgment: 18 October 2012

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – parties sought orders to close the class of group members – parties sought that any group member who failed to register would (subject to any further order) be barred from the benefit of any judgment obtained – whether Court has power to make such orders – design of class actions regime under Part IVA of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) discussed – whether compelling reason demonstrated to justify the Court requiring group members to take positive steps to facilitate closing the class of group members – whether the respondents’ asserted need to better quantify potential group members’ claims was a compelling reason – applications denied.

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Part IVA

Cases cited:
McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd (1998) 84 FCR 1
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2003] VSC 212

King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) [2002] FCA 1560

P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 176
Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1
Thomas v Powercor Australia Ltd (No.1) [2010] VSC 489

Perry v Powercor Australia Ltd [2012] VSC 113

Thomas v Powercor Australia Ltd [2011] VSC 614

Date of hearing: 18 October 2012

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 13

VID 4 of 2010

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr RP Gorton QC with Mr J Rowe

Solicitor for the Applicant: Arnold Thomas & Becker

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr CM Scerri SC

Solicitor for the Respondent: Allens

VID 5 of 2010

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr RP Gorton QC with Mr Rowe

Solicitor for the Applicant: Arnold Thomas & Becker

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr A Payne SC with Mr P Wallis

Solicitor for the First Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr JP Slattery

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Clayton Utz

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 4 of 2010

BETWEEN:
IAN WINTERFORD
Applicant

AND:
PFIZER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 422 348)
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 5 of 2010

BETWEEN:
RODNEY COLLIN
Applicant

AND:
ASPEN PHARMACARE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 096 236 985)
First Respondent

ELI LILLY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 233 992)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE:

18 OCTOBER 2012

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me today two proceedings brought under Part IVA of…

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 Winterford v Pfizer Australia Pty 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: [2012] FCA 1199
Decision Date: 18 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Winterford, along with other members of a defined class, brought proceedings against Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the design and implementation of the class action regime under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The plaintiffs sought orders to close the class of group members, and additionally, they requested that any group member who failed to register would be barred from the benefit of any judgment obtained, subject to any further order. The central legal issues before the court were whether it had the power to make such orders and, if so, whether a compelling reason was demonstrated to justify the court requiring group members to take positive steps to facilitate closing the class of group members.

The court examined the statutory framework and noted that the design of the class actions regime was intended to facilitate the resolution of large numbers of similar claims without the need for each individual to initiate separate proceedings. The court held that while the Federal Court had the inherent jurisdiction to control its own procedure, including the management of representative proceedings, the power to make orders requiring group members to take positive steps to close the class was not supported by the text or purpose of the statute. The court further found that the respondents had not demonstrated a compelling reason to justify such orders, particularly given the asserted need to better quantify potential group members' claims. The court concluded that compelling reasons would need to go beyond mere convenience or efficiency, requiring a demonstration of significant public interest or justice.

Consequently, the court denied the applications made by the parties. The court held that it did not have the power to make orders requiring group members to take positive steps to close the class, and no compelling reason had been demonstrated to warrant such a departure from the statutory scheme. The applications were dismissed, and the class remained open for those who wished to join the proceedings.

Orders