De Brett Seafood Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Limited

Solicitor for the First and Second Applicants: Maurice Blackburn

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr C Colquhoun

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Johnson Winter and Slattery

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr B F Quinn

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Freehills

Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Ms K Watts

Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Minter Ellison

Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: Mr A McClelland

Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: DLA Piper Australia

Counsel for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Mr R Yezerski

Solicitor for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Eighth Respondent: Mr D Kambovski

Solicitor for the Eighth Respondent: Norton Rose Australia

Counsel for the Ninth Respondent: Mr J A Arnott

Solicitor for the Ninth Respondent: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Counsel for Société Air France, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Martinair Holland NV: Mr P Solomon SC & Mr P Herzfeld

Solicitor for Société Air France, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Martinair Holland NV: Allens Arthur Robinson

Counsel for Cargolux Airlines International SA: Mr S H Parmenter

Solicitor for Cargolux Airlines International SA: Blake Dawson

Counsel for Korean Air Lines Co Ltd: Ms R L Enbom

Solicitor for Korean Air Lines Co Ltd: Clayton Utz

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 12 of 2007

BETWEEN: DE BRETT SEAFOOD PTY LTD (ACN 093 552 366)

J WISBEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 959 851)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

JAPAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED (ARBN 000 564 358)

AND BETWEEN: deutsche lufthansa aktiengesellschaft (arbn 000 495 232)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

and between: qantas airways LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 000 479 514)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

JAPAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED (ARBN 564358)

AND BETWEEN: BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC (ARBN 002 747 597)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

and between: singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 000 479 514)

AND: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE (ARBN 000 489 074)

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 7O2 447)

AND BETWEEN: Singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE (ARBN 000 489 074)

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 7O2 447)

AND BETWEEN: Singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: Korean airlines co ltd (arbn 003 938 261)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 479514)

AND: Korean airlines co ltd (arbn 003 938 261)

AND: KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 702 447)

AND: AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)

First Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

Second Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Third Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Fourth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Fifth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

Sixth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Seventh Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

AND: KOREAN AIR LINES CO LTD (ARBN 479514)

JUDGE: TRACEY J DATE OF ORDER: 13 december 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

1. Leave be granted to each of the sixth and seventh respondents to file and serve on Société Air France (ARBN 000 489 074), Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (ARBN 000 067 916), Martinair Holland NV (ARBN 069 862 862), Cargolux Airlines International SA (ARBN 089 702 447) and Korean Airlines Co Ltd (ARBN 003 938 261) a notice of cross-claim for contribution or indemnity in respect of a claim against them in the proceeding in the form filed on 5 December 2011, on or before 19 December 2011.
2. Leave be granted to the ninth respondent to file and serve on Société Air France (ARBN 000 489 074), Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (ARBN 000 067 916), Martinair Holland NV (ARBN 069 862 862), Cargolux Airlines International SA (ARBN 089 702 447) and Korean Airlines Co Ltd (ARBN 003 938 261) a notice of cross-claim for contribution or indemnity in respect of a claim against it in the proceeding in the form attached to the email of Peta Carter Stevenson sent on 2 December 2011, on or before 19 December 2011.
3. Each cross-respondent file and serve a defence to the cross-claims of the sixth, seventh and ninth respondents on or before 30 January 2012.
4. Korean Airlines Co Ltd file and serve its defence to the cross-claim of the second respondent on or before 30 January 2012.
5. The sixth and seventh respondents pay the costs of each of the cross-respondents in relation to their applications for leave to file cross-claims.
6. The ninth respondent pay the costs of each of the cross-respondents in relation to its application for leave to file and serve a cross-claim. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 12 of 2007

BETWEEN: DE BRETT SEAFOOD PTY LTD (ACN 093 552 366)

J WISBEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED (ACN 001 959 851)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

JAPAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED (ARBN 000 564 358)

AND BETWEEN: deutsche lufthansa aktiengesellschaft (arbn 000 495 232)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

and between: qantas airways LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 000 479 514)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

JAPAN AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED (ARBN 564358)

AND BETWEEN: BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC (ARBN 002 747 597)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

and between: singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (ACN 009 661 901)

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 000 479 514)

AND: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE (ARBN 000 489 074)

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 7O2 447)

AND BETWEEN: Singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE (ARBN 000 489 074)

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 7O2 447)

AND BETWEEN: Singapore airlines ltd (arbn 001 056 195)

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

AND: Korean airlines co ltd (arbn 003 938 261)

AND BETWEEN: CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED (ARBN 479514)

AND: Korean airlines co ltd (arbn 003 938 261)

AND: KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ NV (ARBN 000 067 916)

CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL SA (ARBN 089 702 447)

AND: AIR NEW ZEALAND LTD (ARBN 000 312 685)

First Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

AIR NEW ZEALAND (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 084 974 569)

Second Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Third Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Fourth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Fifth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

SINGAPORE AIRLINES CARGO PTE LTD (ARBN 095 934 857)

Sixth Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

Seventh Cross-Respondent on the Thirteenth Cross-Claim

AND: KOREAN AIR LINES CO LTD (ARBN 479514)

JUDGE: TRACEY J DATE: 13 dECEMBER 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant commenced this class action in 2007. The respondents are international carriers of air-freight. It is alleged that they engaged in cartel conduct in contravention of the provisions of s 45(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)). 2 The respondents filed their defences earlier this year. Procedural directions were given on 15 July 2011 pursuant to which any cross-claims by any of the respondents were to be filed and served on or before 29 July 2011. 3 Notwithstanding these orders a series of cross-claims or applications for leave to file and serve notices of cross-claim for contribution of indemnity have since been filed: see De Brett Seafood Pty Ltd v Qantas Airways Limited (No 3) [2011] FCA 1059 ("De Brett (No 3)"). 4 Further applications have now been made by the sixth and seventh respondents, Air New Zealand Limited and Air New Zealand (Australia) Pty Ltd ("Air New Zealand") and the ninth respondent British Airways Plc ("British Airways"). 5 Each of these respondents seeks to file cross-claims against Korean Airlines Co Ltd ("Korean Airlines"), Société Air France ("Air France"), Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV ("KLM"), Martinair Holland NV ("Martinair") and Cargolux Airlines International SA ("Cargolux"). British Airways' application was lodged shortly before a hearing conducted on 2 December 2011. Air New Zealand did not file its application until 5 December 2011. 6 Each application was opposed by each of the proposed cross-respondents. 7 The making of cross-claims is, relevantly, governed by rr 15.04 and 15.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 ("the Rules"). Those provisions read: "15.04 Time for bringing cross-claim A notice of cross-claim must be filed at the same time as the filing of: (a) the respondent's defence; or (b) the respondent's affidavit in reply to the applicant's affidavit in the principal proceeding. 15.05 Application for extension of time to file cross-claim (1) A respondent who wants to file a notice of cross-claim, but has not complied with rule 15.04, must apply to the Court for leave to file a notice of cross-claim. (2) An application under subrule (1) must be accompanied by: (a) an affidavit stating: (i) briefly but specifically, the nature of the cross-claim and its relationship to the subject matter of the proceeding; and (ii) why the notice of cross-claim was not filed in accordance with rule 15.04; and (b) a draft notice of cross-claim that complies with rule 15.02." 8 The respondents have failed to comply with r 15.04. They have, therefore, been required to apply for leave pursuant to r 15.05. 9 There was no dispute that each respondent had complied with the requirements of r 15.05(2) apart from sub-paragraph (a)(ii). 10 The solicitors acting for British Airways explained its position in an affidavit affirmed on 2 December 2011. Ms Peta Stevenson deposed that: "British Airways' previous position with respect to cross-claims has been to bring a cross-claim against any respondent to the proceeding, but not to seek to add additional parties on its own motion. British Airways has brought cross-claims against all of the respondents to the main proceedings other than the eight respondent (sic) … Once the new cross-respondents were joined to the proceedings by other respondents, the risks with respect to costs and resources of bringing a cross-claim substantially diminished, as the new cross-respondents would already be parties, and British Airways decided to take steps to bring its own cross-claim against them because they essentially fell in the same category as the existing respondents to the Applicants' claim." 11 Air New Zealand's explanation was that it: "… did not issue cross claims against the proposed cross respondents at the time it filed its defence as to do so Air New Zealand would have multiplied the issues for determination and added parties to the litigation which multiplication of issues and parties it did not wish to engender. Instead, it took a course of cross claiming for contribution against any specified Other Cartel Participants (as defined in paragraph 94 of the seventh amended statement of claim) who are joined to the litigation by another party, given that the issues in respect of those parties were already before the Court for determination in the proceedings." 12 I accept that these explanations meet the requirements of r 15.05(2)(a)(ii) of the Rules. 13 It remains to determine whether, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, leave should be granted to file and serve the proposed cross-claims. 14 In De Brett (No 3), in granting leave to some other respondents to file cross-claims out of time, I said (at [20]) that: "The applications presently under consideration were made only a matter of weeks after the previous grant of leave expired. They were made at a time which will allow the proposed cross-claims to be accommodated with minimal difficulty within the existing pre-trial arrangements. The efficient and just conduct of the proceeding will not be impeded by grants of leave. The further the case proceeds towards trial the less will be the weight that this consideration will bear. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that any future applications by the respondents to file cross-claims against other cartel participants will be treated in the same manner." Some three months have elapsed since I made these observations. 15 The applicant did not suggest that it would suffer any prejudice were leave to be granted. No did any of the other existing respondents or cross-respondents to the proceeding. The proposed cross-respondents are each already cross-respondents to claims made by respondents other than Air New Zealand and British Airways. They each are alleged to have been a participant in each of the global cartel arrangements which gave rise to the proceeding. Each falls within the definition of "other cartel participants" appearing in the current version of the statement of claim. 16 Were the present applications to be refused it would be open to Air New Zealand and British Airways to commence additional proceedings against the proposed cross-respondents. 17 In these circumstances it is appropriate that the leave sought by Air New Zealand and British Airways be granted. Although their applications have been made much later than they should have been, the granting of leave will not impede the efficient and just conduct of the proceeding. I repeat, however, that, the closer the proceeding approaches to trial, the harder it will be for a respondent who makes a belated application for leave to cross-claim to succeed in any such application. 18 No objection has been taken by the proposed cross-respondents to the form of the proposed cross-claims against them. 19 Given the unexplained delay in bringing the applications for leave, a delay which has caused unnecessary expense to the proposed cross-respondents, Air New Zealand and British Airways should pay each proposed cross-respondents' costs of the leave applications. I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tracey.