Legal Research
Cases
Wong v Silkfield

Wong v Silkfield

Case [2000] FCA 1421 2 October 2000

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wong & Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – where settlement sanction sought in representative proceedings – consideration of position of group members who have not expressed willingness to participate in settlement, but did not opt out – importance of notice – whether settlements sought should be sanctioned
Building Units & Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 33
Lopez & Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 104
Law Report Commission Report No. 46 (1988), “Grouped Proceedings in the Federal Court”
JAMES WONG & ORS v SILKFIELD PTY LTD AND SILKFIELD PTY LTD v SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586 & ORS
QG 167 OF 1997
JAMES WONG & ORS v SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586 & ORS
Q 277 OF 1999
SING TEK (DAVID) LIM & ANOR v SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586 & ORS
Q 25 OF 2000
SPENDER J
BRISBANE
2 OCTOBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 167 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

JAMES WONG and JANICE WONG and ROY JULIAN FLIGHT (for and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the group referred to in the application)
APPLICANTS

AND:

AND BETWEEN:

AND:

AND:

AND:

AND:

SILKFIELD PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

SILKFIELD PTY LTD
CROSS CLAIMANT

SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586
FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER MARK COUPER
SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT

DARRIN JOHN COUPER
THIRD CROSS RESPONDENT

ROBERT WILLIAM CHARLES BUYS
FOURTH CROSS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1)The representative proceedings commenced by application QG 167 of 1997 be settled on the terms contained in the settlement deed executed by the parties in applications QG 167 of 1997 and Q 277 of 1999; varied to delete from schedule 1B the name Steven Ming-Hong Tsai, and to include in schedule 3: Steven Ming-Hong Tsai (Lot 48) $222,000, and George Ming-Chou Tsai (Lot 65) $224,000.

(2)The affidavit of Wendy Ann Blucher, sworn 14 September 2000, which incorporates the settlement deed as annexure WB10, as varied by order 1 of these orders, be sealed to give effect to clause 8.1 of the deed whereby the contents of the deed are to be kept confidential.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 277 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

JAMES WONG and JANICE WONG and ROY JULIAN FLIGHT (for and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the group referred to in the application)
APPLICANTS

AND:
AND:
AND:
AND:
AND:
AND:

SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER MARK COUPER
SECOND RESPONDENT

DARRIN JOHN COUPER
THIRD RESPONDENT

ROBERT WILLIAM CHARLES BUYS
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JAMES RAPTIS
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RAPTIS GROUP LTD ACN 010 472 858
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS…

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 Wong v Silkfield

Details

AGLC: Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421
Case: [2000] FCA 1421
Decision Date: 2 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wong v Silkfield involved the settling of representative proceedings initiated by two separate applications, QG 167 of 1997 and QG 277 of 1999, along with additional proceedings under application Q 25 of 2000. The dispute centred on the terms of settlement deeds executed by the parties involved, with specific focus on the distribution of funds among the parties. The matter was determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues that the court addressed were the appropriate distribution of funds as outlined in the settlement deeds, the validity of the variations to these deeds, and the enforcement of confidentiality clauses within the deeds. The court had to consider whether the proposed variations to the settlement deeds were fair and reasonable and whether the confidentiality clauses should be upheld.

In its reasoning, the court found that the variations to the settlement deeds were appropriate and reflected a fair resolution of the dispute. The court also upheld the confidentiality clauses, sealing the relevant affidavits to ensure the contents of the deeds remained confidential. The orders confirmed the settlement terms, including specific allocations of funds to the parties, and directed the sealing of affidavits to protect the confidentiality of the settlement details.

The final orders of the court provided for the settlement of the representative proceedings under the terms of the settlement deeds, with specific variations regarding the allocation of funds to certain parties. The court also ordered that the affidavits, which contained the settlement deeds, be sealed to maintain confidentiality. This decision effectively resolved the dispute by confirming the settlement terms and protecting the confidentiality of the settlement details.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The representative proceedings commenced by application QG 167 of 1997 be settled on the terms contained in the settlement deed executed by the parties in applications QG 167 of 1997 and Q 277 of 1999; varied to delete from schedule 1B the name Steven Ming-Hong Tsai, and to include in schedule 3: Steven Ming-Hong Tsai (Lot 48) $222,000, and George Ming-Chou Tsai (Lot 65) $224,000.

(2) The affidavit of Wendy Ann Blucher, sworn 14 September 2000, which incorporates the settlement deed as annexure WB10, as varied by order 1 of these orders, be sealed to give effect to clause 8.1 of the deed whereby the contents of the deed are to be kept confidential.

(1) The representative proceedings commenced by application QG 277 of 1999 be settled on the terms contained in the settlement deed executed by the parties in applications QG 167 of 1997 and Q 277 of 1999; varied to delete from schedule 1B the name Steven Ming-Hong Tsai, and to include in schedule 3: Steven Ming-Hong Tsai (Lot 48) $222,000, and George Ming-Chou Tsai (Lot 65) $224,000.

(1) The proceedings commenced by application Q 25 of 2000 be settled on the terms contained in the settlement deed executed by the parties to that application.

(2) The affidavit of Wendy Ann Blucher, sworn 20 September 2000, which incorporates the settlement deed as annexure WB1, be sealed to give effect to clause 9.1 of the deed whereby the contents of the deed are to be kept confidential.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SPENDER J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421

Most Recent Citation

Jonsandi Transport Pty Ltd v Paccar Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1788

Cases citing this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Rickhuss v The Cosmetic Institute Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2023] NSWSC 666 Para 52

…common question of law or fact ”. In that context, substantial refers to a question which is “ real or of substance ”: see Wong v Silkfield (1999) 198 CLR 255; [1999] HCA 48 at [27]; Shipley v Maru Financial Management Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 252 at [38] and [40].…
Thomas v Romeo Lockleys Asset Partnership
[2022] FCA 1106 Para 25

…ion is whether the objector is prepared to assume the role — and risks — of being lead plaintiff: cf Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1421 at [24]–[30]; (h)in relation to provisions for costs-sharing among the successful group members, again an important consideration is where the group members were alerted at…
Ritchie v Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2022] NSWSC 849 Para 24

…or is unwilling or unable to take on all of the economic and other burdens which the plaintiff otherwise bears ( Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421 at [24] – [30] (Spender J)). [23] The effect of those considerations is that the proposed settlement must be fair and reasonable and in the interests of all group member…
Jenkings v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4)
[2021] FCA 839 Para 30

…In Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421, as part of the orders approving a Pt IVA settlement, the Court made a suppression order over the settlement deed. The proceedings concerned a contractual dispute over the sale of units in two apartment towers at Broadbeach on the Gold Coast. The making of the suppression order…
Fisher (Trustee for the Tramik Super Fund Trust) v Vocus Group Limited (No 2)
[2020] FCA 579 Para 6

…question is whether the objector is prepared to assume the role − and risks – of being lead plaintiff: cf Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1421 at [24]-[30]; (h)in relation to provisions for costs-sharing among the successful group members, again an important consideration is where the group members were alert…
Evans v Health Administration Corporation
[2019] NSWSC 1781 Para 24

…ish where the objector is unwilling or unable to take on all of the economic and other burdens which the plaintiff otherwise bears ( Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421 at [24] – [30] (Spender J)).…
O'Dea v Westpac Banking Corporation
[2019] NSWSC 1078 Para 24

…or is unwilling or unable to take on all of the economic and other burdens which the plaintiff otherwise bears ( Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421 at [24] – [30] (Spender J)). The effect of those considerations is that the proposed settlement must be fair and reasonable and in the interests of all group members who…
King v Liverpool City Council (No.3)
[2018] NSWSC 1047 Para 24

…is unwilling or unable to take on all of the economic and other burdens which the plaintiff otherwise bears ( Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421 at [24] – [30] (Spender J)).”…
Clasul Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
[2016] FCA 1119 Para 39

…question is whether the objector is prepared to assume the role − and risks – of being lead plaintiff: cf Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1421 at [24]-[30]; (h)in relation to provisions for costs-sharing among the successful group members, again an important consideration is where the group members were alert…
Johnston v Endeavour Energy
[2016] NSWSC 1132 Para 17

…ish where the objector is unwilling or unable to take on all of the economic and other burdens which the plaintiff otherwise bears ( Wong v Silkfield [2000] FCA 1421 at [24] – [30] (Spender J)).…
Camilleri v The Trust Company (Nominees) Limited
[2015] FCA 1468 Para 5

…question is whether the objector is prepared to assume the role − and risks – of being lead plaintiff: cf Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1421 at [24]-[30]; (h)in relation to provisions for costs-sharing among the successful group members, again an important consideration is where the group members were alert…
Guglielmin v Trescowthick (No 5)
[2006] FCA 1385 Para 27

…se factors listed by Goldberg J have been adopted by a number of judges when asked to make similar orders in this Court: See Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1421; Neil v P&O Cruises Australia Ltd [2003] FCA 1325; Lukey v Corporate Investment Australia Funds Management Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1602; Tongue v Council…
Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited
[2001] FCA 1493 Para 13

…l circumstances. His Honour’s decision pre-dates that of the High Court in Wong v Silkfield. His Honour applied the decision of the Full Court in Silkfield v Wong (1998) 159 ALR 329, which had held that an issue needed to be at the core of the dispute before it could be regarded as substantial. Nevertheless, in a case whe…
Jonsandi Transport Pty Ltd v Paccar Australia Pty Ltd
[1999] FCA 1788 Para 2

…persons represented have to give rise to “a substantial common issue of law or fact”: s 33C(1)(c). That concept is discussed by the High Court in Wong v Silkfield (1999) 165 ALR 373 at 381.…

View all 14 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Lopez v Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd
[1999] FCA 104 Para 17

…irness or reasonableness of, the proposed settlement. That notice is consistent with the observations found in Lopez v Star World Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 104, an unreported Federal Court judgment of 28 January 1999, and is also consistent with the position in the United States, where notice is a key elemen…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
33 2 mentions (from Para 11)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 8)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 167 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	JAMES WONG and JANICE WONG and ROY JULIAN FLIGHT (for and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the group referred to in the application) APPLICANTS
AND: AND BETWEEN: AND: AND: AND: AND:	SILKFIELD PTY LTD RESPONDENT SILKFIELD PTY LTD CROSS CLAIMANT SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586 FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER MARK COUPER SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT DARRIN JOHN COUPER THIRD CROSS RESPONDENT ROBERT WILLIAM CHARLES BUYS FOURTH CROSS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 277 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JAMES WONG and JANICE WONG and ROY JULIAN FLIGHT (for and on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the group referred to in the application) APPLICANTS
AND: AND: AND: AND: AND: AND:	SKYE COURT PTY LTD ACN 011 025 586 FIRST RESPONDENT CHRISTOPHER MARK COUPER SECOND RESPONDENT DARRIN JOHN COUPER THIRD RESPONDENT ROBERT WILLIAM CHARLES BUYS FOURTH RESPONDENT JAMES RAPTIS FIFTH RESPONDENT RAPTIS GROUP LTD ACN 010 472 858 SIXTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE