Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 8) [2016] FCA 1096

Hopkins v AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (No 8) [2016] FCA 1096

The settlement was approved because, after considering the extensive evidence including the confidential counsel opinion, the history of negotiations, the complexity and risks of the proceeding, the costs position, the lack of objection or opt out by group members, and the proposed distribution scheme with review mechanisms, the Court was satisfied that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable both as between the applicants and group members and the respondents, and as between the applicants and group members themselves.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Concerning Alleged Defective Product Disclosure Statement and Corporations Act Claims / Application for Approval of Settlement Under Ss 33 V and 33 ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Settlement approved and related administration, costs, reimbursement and confidentiality orders made; proceeding stood over for further orders.
Legal Topics
['settlement Approval' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'product Disclosure Statement' 'misleading or Deceptive Statement or Omission' 'managed Investment Schemes' 'confidentiality Orders']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'corporations Law'] ['settlement Approval' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'product Disclosure Statement' 'misleading or Deceptive Statement or Omission' 'managed Investment Schemes' 'confidentiality Orders']

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) Concerning Alleged Defective Product Disclosure Statement and Corporations Act Claims / Application for Approval of Settlement Under Ss 33 V and 33 ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed settlement should be approved under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as fair and reasonable as between the applicants and group members, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand' 'Whether the proposed settlement distribution scheme was fair and reasonable as between the applicants and group members' 'Whether Maurice Blackburn should be appointed administrator of the Settlement Distribution Scheme' "Whether the applicants' reimbursement payment and legal costs should be approved for the purposes of the Settlement Distribution Scheme" 'Whether confidentiality orders should be made under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement was approved because, after considering the extensive evidence including the confidential counsel opinion, the history of negotiations, the complexity and risks of the proceeding, the costs position, the lack of objection or opt out by group members, and the proposed distribution scheme with review mechanisms, the Court was satisfied that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable both as between the applicants and group members and the respondents, and as between the applicants and group members themselves.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved and related administration, costs, reimbursement and confidentiality orders made; proceeding stood over for further orders.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to ss 33V and 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the settlement of the proceeding was approved on the terms set out in the confidential settlement document and the Proposed Settlement Distribution Scheme with Confidential Schedule A Loss Assessment Formula.' 'Maurice Blackburn was...