Bright v Femcare Limited [2002] FCA 11

Bright v Femcare Limited [2002] FCA 11

Because there was a real possibility that the s 33N order might prejudice group members by causing individual limitation periods to run again and requiring them to commence protective individual proceedings pending the appeal process, and because the s 33N order was a case management order not intended to prejudice group members' individual entitlements, it was appropriate in all the circumstances to stay and suspend the order pending the leave application and any consequential appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Application for Stay and Suspension of Order Pending Application for Leave to Appeal and Any Consequential Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted; operation of the 19 October 2001 order suspended pending determination of the applicant's application for leave to appeal and any consequential appeal or until further order.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'section 33 N Orders' 'suspension of Limitation Periods for Group Members' 'part IVA Representative Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'section 33 N Orders' 'suspension of Limitation Periods for Group Members' 'part IVA Representative Proceedings']

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 for Stay and Suspension of Order Pending Application for Leave to Appeal and Any Consequential Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the order made on 19 October 2001 that the proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding should be stayed pending the applicant's application for leave to appeal and any consequential appeal." 'Whether an order under s 33N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) may cause limitation periods for individual group members to begin running again.' 'Whether it was appropriate to protect group members from the need to commence individual proceedings pending the appeal process.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was a real possibility that the s 33N order might prejudice group members by causing individual limitation periods to run again and requiring them to commence protective individual proceedings pending the appeal process, and because the s 33N order was a case management order not intended to prejudice group members' individual entitlements, it was appropriate in all the circumstances to stay and suspend the order pending the leave application and any consequential appeal.

Court Disposition

Stay granted; operation of the 19 October 2001 order suspended pending determination of the applicant's application for leave to appeal and any consequential appeal or until further order.

Orders

  • ["The order made on 19 October 2001 be stayed and its operation suspended pending the determination of the applicant's application for leave to appeal in respect of that order and the determination of any appeal consequential upon the grant of such leave or until further order." 'Costs on application for stay and...