Gray v Cash Converters International Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 1109

Gray v Cash Converters International Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 1109

The Court approved the settlement because the evidence satisfied Jagot J that it was a fair and reasonable compromise of the group members' claims, having regard to the considerations in Practice Note CM 17, the complexity and likely duration of the litigation, the group reaction, the best potential recovery and litigation risks, the comparison between deferred establishment fees and the $20 million settlement sum, the adequacy and estimated cost of the settlement distribution scheme, the appropriateness of the plaintiff payments, and the reasonableness of the approved costs and disbursements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Application by the Parties for Approval of Settlement Under Ss 33 V and 33 ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Settlement approved in both proceedings.
Legal Topics
['court Approval of Settlement' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'group Members' 'deferred Establishment Fee' 'costs and Disbursements' 'confidential Affidavit' 'client Legal Privilege']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['court Approval of Settlement' 'settlement Distribution Scheme' 'group Members' 'deferred Establishment Fee' 'costs and Disbursements' 'confidential Affidavit' 'client Legal Privilege']

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 / Application by the Parties 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 Court should approve the settlement of two related representative proceedings under ss 33V and 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise of the claims made on behalf of group members.' 'Whether the proposed settlement distribution scheme, plaintiff payment, costs and disbursements, and confidentiality orders should be approved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court approved the settlement because the evidence satisfied Jagot J that it was a fair and reasonable compromise of the group members' claims, having regard to the considerations in Practice Note CM 17, the complexity and likely duration of the litigation, the group reaction, the best potential recovery and litigation risks, the comparison between deferred establishment fees and the $20 million settlement sum, the adequacy and estimated cost of the settlement distribution scheme, the appropriateness of the plaintiff payments, and the reasonableness of the approved costs and disbursements.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved in both proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to ss 33V and 33ZF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the settlement of NSD 2089 of 2013 was approved on the terms set out in the Deed of Settlement executed on 18 June 2015 as amended by the Variation of Settlement Deed executed on 21 July 2015.' 'Pursuant to ss 33V and 33ZF of the Federal...