Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 7) [2020] FCA 1487

Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (No 7) [2020] FCA 1487

It was appropriate to reserve the question and the application for the declaration to the Full Court because the question was the subject of conflicting judgments after BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster, was a confined and discrete question of law, was likely to have a material impact on settlement negotiations and the conduct of the representative proceeding, and concerned a 'matter' because it was not hypothetical and had practical and real consequences for the parties' bargaining positions and commercial interests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Reserve a Question and Application for Declaratory Relief to the Full Court
Outcome
The question and the application for declaratory relief were reserved for determination by the Full Court, Dr Oren Bigos SC was appointed as contradictor, and Galactic was granted leave to intervene in respect of the CFO Issues.
Legal Topics
['common Fund Orders' 'reservation of Questions to the Full Court' 'justiciable Controversy' 'litigation Funding' 'class Action Settlement or Determination']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'declaratory Relief'] ['common Fund Orders' 'reservation of Questions to the Full Court' 'justiciable Controversy' 'litigation Funding' 'class Action Settlement or Determination']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / Interlocutory Application by the First Respondent to Reserve a Question and Application for Declaratory Relief to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court of Australia has power pursuant to ss 33V, 33Z or 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to make a Common Fund Order upon the settlement or determination of the proceeding.' 'Whether the question and the application for declaratory relief should be reserved to the Full Court under s 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether the question concerns a 'matter' and is not merely hypothetical or advisory." 'Whether a contradictor should be appointed in the absence of a natural contradictor.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to reserve the question and the application for the declaration to the Full Court because the question was the subject of conflicting judgments after BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster, was a confined and discrete question of law, was likely to have a material impact on settlement negotiations and the conduct of the representative proceeding, and concerned a 'matter' because it was not hypothetical and had practical and real consequences for the parties' bargaining positions and commercial interests.

Court Disposition

The question and the application for declaratory relief were reserved for determination by the Full Court, Dr Oren Bigos SC was appointed as contradictor, and Galactic was granted leave to intervene in respect of the CFO Issues.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 25(6) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the question whether the Federal Court of Australia has power pursuant to ss 33V, 33Z or 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to make a Common Fund Order upon the settlement or...