HIS HONOUR: This judgment concerns an application by the defendant, Rolls Royce PLC ("Rolls Royce"), for the dismissal of the claims of some group members of a representative action who have not registered their claims against Rolls Royce in accordance with the Court's orders. One of the orders sought is that the dismissal operates as a final determination of those claims.
The nature and scope of the proceedings was described in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC [2013] NSWSC 805 at [3] to [5]. Rolls Royce is sued as the entity responsible for the manufacture of an engine that is said to have failed on a Qantas fight that departed from Changi airport in Singapore on 4 November 2010. The action was brought on behalf of those persons who were onboard the flight and who suffered a psychological injury as a result of their experiences consequent upon the engine failing.
The number of persons aboard the flight was approximately 470. Over time, the number of persons said to fall within the relevant group has been reduced as various passengers have opted out. Further, for the reasons given in Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83 ("Lam (No 3)"), I made orders to give effect to what is sometimes described as "class closure". In Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (2013) 39 VR 255; [2013] VSC 17 at 23, Forrest J succinctly described this concept as follows:
"This expression means, as I understand it, that a court may require group members to identify themselves by a certain point in time as having an interest in any judgment or proposed settlement. Failing a declaration of such interest (normally achieved by registering with the Court or a firm of solicitors by a certain date), any subsisting entitlement to damages of the group members relating to the claim may be extinguished."
In Lam (No 3) I determined that passengers with overseas contact details who did not register with the plaintiff's solicitors would be removed from the class (at [29] to [30]). I also determined that passengers with Australian contact details who did not register with the plaintiff's solicitors were to remain in the class, but they could not participate in any settlement or resolution without the leave of the Court (at [31]).
To that end, on 27 March 2015, orders were made requiring persons to register with the plaintiff's solicitors by 3 June 2015 and thereafter provide certain basic particulars of their claims. Those orders provided, inter alia, that group members who did not register "shall not, without leave of the Court, be entitled to claim compensation pursuant to any settlement." To facilitate these orders, the opt-out notices that were sent to group members stated, inter alia:
"If you have a claim for psychological injury arising from the engine failure incident on Qantas Airbus flight QF32 on 4 November 2010 and you do not register your claim by the deadline or otherwise opt out of the proceedings, you will be bound by any settlement of the class action but will not, without otherwise obtaining the Court's permission, be entitled to claim a share of any settlement moneys. Also, if you do not register and a settlement is proposed, you will not be notified of this settlement proposal and will not have the opportunity to oppose the settlement. This means that you will lose the right to sue the defendant for any injury or loss suffered and will lose your rights to any compensation."
Otherwise, the proceedings have continued at a relatively slow pace since Lam (No 3). An attempt to have the proper law of the plaintiff's claim judicially determined was aborted, but it was eventually agreed that the relevant law was that of England and Wales (see Lam v Rolls Royce (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 487 at [11]). Further, at some point Rolls Royce admitted, for the purposes of these proceedings only, that its manufacture of the engine was not undertaken to the appropriate standard and that that was the cause of the engine's failure. In practical terms, that admission meant that the only remaining issue for the plaintiff and the group members who wished to claim compensation was whether each of them could establish that they had suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness as a result of the events consequent upon the engine failure and, if so, the level of damages they could recover. This development was not, however, sufficient to lead to a settlement of proceedings. Instead, on 10 June 2016, orders were made establishing a detailed regime for registered group members to provide particulars and some material in support of their claims.
In respect of non-registered group members, those orders enabled them to apply for leave to pursue a claim by filing an application to that effect by 1 August 2016. Further, the plaintiff's solicitors were ordered to forward notices to the non-registered group members, advising them of the effect of the orders that were made. The notice made it clear to the recipients that there was a deadline of 1 August 2016 to make any application for leave to pursue a claim. The notice also stated,
"If you do not apply for leave by 1 August 2016, or the Court does not grant you leave to make a claim for compensation, you will lose the right to claim compensation arising from the events of 4 November 2010 for the defendant, and the Court will dismiss the claim that you have against it."
In the end result, none of the unregistered group members filed an application for leave. Hence, in an effort to achieve some certainty for its position, Rolls Royce now seeks orders dismissing the claims of the remaining 84 unregistered group members and also seeks an order confirming that it "operates as a final determination" of their rights "to claim damages or relief" against Rolls Royce.
Nothing in Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ("CPA") expressly confers a power on the Court to make an order dismissing a group member's claim in advance of the determination of the claim of the representative plaintiff or to determine that it is a final resolution of that claim in respect of the events pleaded. Rolls Royce nevertheless contends that s 183 of the CPA empowers the Court to make the orders sought. That section provides:
"183 General power of Court to make orders
In any proceedings (including an appeal) conducted under this Part, the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or a group member, make any order that the Court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceedings."
I agree that s 183 enables the Court to make orders dismissing group members' claims, including orders dismissing them in advance of a determination of the representative plaintiff's case. The entire representative action procedure would be undermined if a defendant could not attain the certainty of knowing that, if circumstances warrant it, group members' claims have been dismissed. Further, I accept that the Court can determine that the dismissal operates as a final determination.
In his written submissions, counsel for Rolls Royce, Mr Chen, traced through some decisions in a number of other representative actions, identifying instances where notices were sent to group members advising them that if they did not either register their claims or bring forward material to support their claim, or both, their right to claim compensation would be extinguished (see for example King v AG Australia Holdings Limited [2002] FCA 1560 at [6] and Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] VSC 212 at [65]). Mr Chen also identified instances where orders were made which on their face appeared to finally determine (adversely) a group member's claim (see, for example, Matthews v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (2013) 39 VR 255; [2013] VSC 17 at [29], and the examples cited at [31]).
That said, none of these decisions extended to discuss the basis upon which those orders were being made. This may be because the matter was so obvious it did not warrant further consideration. Otherwise, I would certainly not proceed on the basis that for a significant period of time other Courts have been issuing idle threats to members of representative actions that if they do not register or bring forward material, their claims to compensation would be extinguished. It would significantly undermine the regime for representative actions provided for in Part 10 of the CPA if a Court could not make an order that had the effect of finally determining a group member's rights and could not do so in advance of the representative party's own case being determined.
Some textual support for the powers to make the orders sought is derived from s 182 of the CPA, which provides:
"182 Suspension of limitation periods
(1) On the commencement of any representative proceedings, the running of the limitation period that applies to the claim of a group member to which the proceedings relate is suspended.
(2) The limitation period does not begin to run again unless either the member opts out of the proceedings under section 162 or the proceedings, and any appeals arising from the proceedings, are determined without finally disposing of the group member's claim.
(3) However, nothing in this section affects the running of a limitation period in respect of a group member who, immediately before the commencement of the representative proceedings, was barred by the expiration of that period from commencing proceedings in the member's own right in respect of a claim in the representative proceedings.
(4) This section applies despite anything in the Limitation Act 1969 or any other law." (emphasis added)
Subsection 182(2) appears to contemplate the Court finally determining a group member's claim and that must extend to either upholding it or dismissing it in such a way as to finally determine it.
In this case, unregistered group members have had every opportunity to notify of their intention to make a claim and bring forward material to support it. The incident that gave rise to the liability occurred in November 2010. In 2015, they were advised of the need to register and the potential consequences if they chose not to. They were given a further opportunity to that effect over some months this year, but none have taken it up. In my view, the time has come when the Court can proceed on the basis that the unregistered group members either do not wish to pursue a claim or do not have material they wish to put forward in support of a claim and that any claims they have should now be extinguished.
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1. Order that all claims by group members for damages or other relief against the defendant arising out of the events onboard QF32 on 4 November 2010 who have not, in accordance with the orders made on 27 March 2015, registered their intention to claim compensation for psychological injury and who are listed in annexure A be dismissed pursuant to s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW);
2. Order that the dismissal of the claims identified in order (1) is to operate as a final determination of the rights of the individual group members listed in annexure A to claim damages or other relief against the defendant arising out of the events onboard QF32 on 4 November 2010.
[2]
Sandy Lam -v- Rolls Royce PLC No. 2013/37342
Annexure "A"
Non-registered Group Members
No. SURNAME GIVEN NAME 1 STATE COUNTRY
1 Abubakar Muhammadrizalbi NSW AUSTRALIA
2 Barkas JohnP NSW AUSTRALIA
3 Barlow Jennifer NSW AUSTRALIA
4 Butterfield Belinda NSW AUSTRALIA
5 Caffin Peter NSW AUSTRALIA
6 Carter Craig NSW AUSTRALIA
7 Caspari David P NSW AUSTRALIA
8 Coacoi Pamela NSW AUSTRALIA
9 Coleman Sean VIC AUSTRALIA
10 Danoy Jeanpierre QLD AUSTRALIA
11 Douglass Brian NSW AUSTRALIA
12 Eccles Andrew NSW AUSTRALIA
13 Edser Jane NSW AUSTRALIA
14 English Gary NSW AUSTRALIA
15 Evans David QLD AUSTRALIA
16 Gan Kok Hui NSW AUSTRALIA
17 Gasporroni Sofia NSW AUSTRALIA
18 Gray Rebecca NSW AUSTRALIA
19 Hall Victor NSW AUSTRALIA
20 Hall Lesley NSW AUSTRALIA
21 Hall Margaret NSW AUSTRALIA
22 Hardin Rachel NSW AUSTRALIA
23 Harrington Timothy NSW AUSTRALIA
24 Hattersiey Robert NSW AUSTRALIA
25 Henderson James NSW AUSTRALIA
26 Hettige Camilus VIC AUSTRALIA
27 Hicks Matthew NSW AUSTRALIA
28 Hill Dwain NSW AUSTRALIA
29 Hunter Julie NSW AUSTRALIA
30 Jayewardene Hiran NSW AUSTRALIA
31 Johnson Simon NSW AUSTRALIA
32 Johnson Mark NSW AUSTRALIA
33 Johnston Terry NSW AUSTRALIA
34 Jones Keith NSW AUSTRALIA
35 Jones Deian NSW AUSTRALIA
36 Kelly Leonidas NSW AUSTRALIA
37 Korbel Anthony NSW AUSTRALIA
38 Korbel Alyna NSW AUSTRALIA
39 Lavikainen Jukka QLD AUSTRALIA
40 Lewis Elizabeth NSW AUSTRALIA
41 Lock Simon NSW AUSTRALIA
42 Mar Wayne NSW AUSTRALIA
43 Mathewson Kathleen QLD AUSTRALIA
44 McGrath Daniel NSW AUSTRALIA
45 McGuiness Judy AUSTRALIA
46 McMahon Ross NSW AUSTRALIA
47 Moningka Octaviana NSW AUSTRALIA
48 Moss Kathryn NSW AUSTRALIA
49 Newman Stuart NSW AUSTRALIA
50 Notenboom Michael AUSTRALIA
51 Ormerod David ACT AUSTRALIA
52 Paliatseas Evangelos NSW AUSTRALIA
53 Penney Robert NSW AUSTRALIA
54 Pratten Belinda NSW AUSTRALIA
55 Raoufirad Vahid NSW AUSTRALIA
56 Reed Ailia NSW AUSTRALIA
57 Renz Volker NSW AUSTRALIA
58 Richards Peter NSW AUSTRALIA
59 Richards Rosemary NSW AUSTRALIA
60 Risk James NSW AUSTRALIA
61 Ryan Clare AUSTRALIA
62 Savage Peter VIC AUSTRALIA
63 Shepherd Neil NSW AUSTRALIA
64 Smith Paul QLD AUSTRALIA
65 Stoddart Lorna NSW AUSTRALIA
66 Strautnieks Eriks NSW AUSTRALIA
67 Swale Natasha AUSTRALIA
68 Thompson Erin NSW AUSTRALIA
69 Unsworth Grace NSW AUSTRALIA
70 Vijh Kayat AUSTRALIA
71 Vilppola Leena QLD AUSTRALIA
72 West David NSW AUSTRALIA
73 White Peter NSW AUSTRALIA
74 Williams Peter NSW AUSTRALIA
75 Wong Eric NSW AUSTRALIA
76 Wooster Keith VIC AUSTRALIA
77 Wooster Susan VIC AUSTRALIA
78 Wooster Doris VIC AUSTRALIA
79 Wooster Tyler VIC AUSTRALIA
80 Wooster James VIC AUSTRALIA
81 Xue Jing ACT AUSTRALIA
82 Yates Bruce NSW AUSTRALIA
83 Yates Carole NSW AUSTRALIA
84 Zantis Lana AUSTRALIA
[3]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 20 September 2016