McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Ltd [1997] FCA 1605

McMullin v ICI Australia Operations Ltd [1997] FCA 1605

Confidentiality over damages awarded by the Court was refused; costs order made on a party/party basis rather than indemnity, as the representative nature and statutory scheme require transparency, and current circumstances did not justify indemnity costs. Section 33V and s 33ZJ restrict settlement and allow solicitors to recover reasonable costs, subject to Court approval.

Parties
Applicant: Brian McMullin; Applicant: Leone Margaret McMullin; First Respondent: ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: ICI Australia Limited; Third Respondent: Crop Care Australia Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Post Liability and Quantum Judgment; Costs and Confidentiality Orders
Outcome
Damages and costs orders pronounced; confidentiality order over damages denied.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Party/party Costs, Indemnity Costs, Representative Proceedings, Approval of Settlement or Discontinuance, Solicitor/client Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Confidentiality Orders Party/party Costs Indemnity Costs Representative Proceedings Approval of Settlement or Discontinuance Solicitor/client Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian McMullin

Applicant

Leone Margaret McMullin

Applicant

ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd

First Respondent

ICI Australia Limited

Second Respondent

Crop Care Australia Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding / Post Liability and Quantum Judgment; Costs and Confidentiality Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether confidentiality order should be made over amounts of damages assessed by the Court
  2. 2 appropriate basis for costs order between applicants and respondents in the representative proceeding
  3. 3 implications of statutory requirements for settlement approval given unidentified group members

Ratio Decidendi

Confidentiality over damages awarded by the Court was refused; costs order made on a party/party basis rather than indemnity, as the representative nature and statutory scheme require transparency, and current circumstances did not justify indemnity costs. Section 33V and s 33ZJ restrict settlement and allow solicitors to recover reasonable costs, subject to Court approval.

Court Disposition

Damages and costs orders pronounced; confidentiality order over damages denied.

Orders

  • First, second and third respondents to pay specified amounts to solicitor for applicants by 12 December 1997 for named applicants and group members.
  • Respondents to pay applicants’ costs incurred up to and including 5 November 1997.