Kim v Wang

LEE AND JACKMAN JJ: 2 These reasons assume familiarity with Kim v Wang [2023] FCAFC 115. 3 By Order 6 made on 25 July 2023, the Full Court invited submissions from the parties as to what orders should be made as to the resolution of individual claims of group members and what, if any, orders should be made as to the individual claim of the appellant. 4 Mr Wang submits that no further order is required in relation to the individual claim of Mr Kim because no monetary judgment was sought on appeal, nor did the notice of appeal seek a remitter. 5 Having determined the issue as to contravening conduct adversely to Mr Kim, the balance of the issues in Mr Kim's claim were not addressed by the primary judge. This claim ought to now be resolved consistently with the orders of the Full Court and such a course was contemplated in the submissions made on appeal (notwithstanding the absence of proposed orders in the notice of appeal). It follows any remaining issues necessary to resolve the claim of Mr Kim should be remitted to a new trial Judge. There is no necessity nor desirability for any limitation to be put on the terms of the remitter. 6 As to the claims of group members, Mr Wang suggests that because no aggregate damages were sought and orders pursuant to s 33ZB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) have been made, individual claims by group members "can be brought by those individual group members in whatever future forum is appropriate". 7 The terms and structure of Pt IVA of the FCA Act accommodate directions being made for the resolution of individual group member claims, following an initial trial, in the context of an extant class action. Any orders and directions relevant to the determination of the individual claims of the group members, including any issues as to declassing, should also be left to the new trial Judge. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justices Lee and Jackman.