Duck v Airservices Australia [2018] FCA 1541

Duck v Airservices Australia [2018] FCA 1541

A common fund order is appropriate in this representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act, given the transition to an open class, benefits of shared costs, informed opt-out process, and protections for group members, as supported by Money Max and related authorities.

Parties
Applicant: Catherine Duck; Respondent: Airservices Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding (class Action) / Interlocutory Application for Common Fund Order
Outcome
Common fund order made with adjustments reflecting Court's reasons.
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Common Fund Orders, Class Actions, Enterprise Agreements, Funding Arrangements
Employment and Industrial Relations Representative Proceedings Common Fund Orders Class Actions Enterprise Agreements Funding Arrangements

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Duck

Applicant

Airservices Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding (class Action) / Interlocutory Application for Common Fund Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is appropriate to make a common fund order in representative proceedings under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

A common fund order is appropriate in this representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act, given the transition to an open class, benefits of shared costs, informed opt-out process, and protections for group members, as supported by Money Max and related authorities.

Court Disposition

Common fund order made with adjustments reflecting Court's reasons.

Orders

  • A common fund order be made in terms that reflect the reasons of the Court.
  • The parties file a joint or competing proposed order within 7 days or as otherwise agreed and notified by email to the associate to Justice Bromwich.