Hassid v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater [2017] NSWSC 599

Hassid v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater [2017] NSWSC 599

Paragraph 6(e) of the Hassid Statement of Claim was struck out because maintaining overlap between the Rodriguez group and the Hassid group would create an insurmountable practical risk of conflicting duties for each proceeding's legal representatives, generate uncertainty and cost during opt out and mediation, make overlapping membership difficult to identify, and materially reduce the prospects of settlement. The Court rejected the submission that striking out paragraph 6(e) would shut out claims without notice, because Rodriguez group members had already been notified that pure economic loss claims were not being pursued and could seek to opt out late if necessary. Leave to amend...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings Under Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Strike Out and Amendment of Group Definition in Competing Representative Proceedings
Outcome
Rodriguez's motion was granted in part by striking out paragraph 6(e) of the Statement of Claim and otherwise dismissed; the plaintiffs' motion to amend was dismissed; directions were made for any proposed Amended Statement of Claim and further hearing.
Legal Topics
['competing Class Actions' 'overlapping Group Members' 'group Definition' 'opt Out Process' 'conflict of Duties for Legal Representatives' 'pure Economic Loss' 'queensland Flooding']
['civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'negligence' 'limitation of Actions'] ['competing Class Actions' 'overlapping Group Members' 'group Definition' 'opt Out Process' 'conflict of Duties for Legal Representatives' 'pure Economic Loss' 'queensland Flooding']

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 Proceedings Under Part 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 / Interlocutory Notices of Motion Concerning Strike Out and Amendment of Group Definition in Competing Representative Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 6(e) of the Hassid Statement of Claim should be struck out because it created overlap between the Hassid group and the Rodriguez group.' 'Whether the proposed amendment to paragraph 6(c) of the Hassid Statement of Claim should be allowed.' 'Whether overlapping group membership in the two representative proceedings would create conflicts of duty, uncertainty, excessive costs, and reduced prospects of settlement.' 'Whether striking out the overlapping group definition would improperly shut out pure economic loss claims of Rodriguez group members without notice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6(e) of the Hassid Statement of Claim was struck out because maintaining overlap between the Rodriguez group and the Hassid group would create an insurmountable practical risk of conflicting duties for each proceeding's legal representatives, generate uncertainty and cost during opt out and mediation, make overlapping membership difficult to identify, and materially reduce the prospects of settlement. The Court rejected the submission that striking out paragraph 6(e) would shut out claims without notice, because Rodriguez group members had already been notified that pure economic loss claims were not being pursued and could seek to opt out late if necessary. Leave to amend...

Court Disposition

Rodriguez's motion was granted in part by striking out paragraph 6(e) of the Statement of Claim and otherwise dismissed; the plaintiffs' motion to amend was dismissed; directions were made for any proposed Amended Statement of Claim and further hearing.

Orders

  • ['In respect of the notice of motion filed for Rodriguez & Sons Pty Limited on 20 April 2017, order that paragraph 6(e) of the Statement of Claim filed 9 January 2017 be struck out.' "Otherwise, Rodriguez's motion dismissed." 'The plaintiffs pay the costs of Rodriguez of the motion.' "In respect of the plaintiffs'...