Symington, Leonard Thomas & Anor v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 969

Symington, Leonard Thomas & Anor v Hoechst Schering Agrevo Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 969

Because the applicants conceded they personally had no claim against the respondents other than the first respondent, they lacked standing under s 33D to bring a representative proceeding against those respondents, and the proceeding as against each of them had to be dismissed with costs. As to the first respondent, although it did not yet appear that seven or more persons had claims against it, the applicants had identified at least four such persons and investigations were incomplete, so the further hearing of the first respondent's motion was adjourned, with the applicants to pay specified costs caused by the adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Claiming Damages in Respect of Losses Flowing From Contamination of Cattle by Endosulfan / Notices of Motion by All Seven Remaining Respondents Seeking to Have the Proceeding Struck Out as Against Them
Outcome
The first respondent's motion was adjourned; the proceeding against the other respondents was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['part IVA Representative Proceedings' 'standing of Representative Applicant' 'claims Against Multiple Respondents' 'strike Out or Dismissal of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings'] ['part IVA Representative Proceedings' 'standing of Representative Applicant' 'claims Against Multiple Respondents' 'strike Out or Dismissal of 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 Claiming Damages in Respect of Losses Flowing From Contamination of Cattle by Endosulfan / Notices of Motion by All Seven Remaining Respondents Seeking to Have the Proceeding Struck Out as Against Them

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 33C(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 requires that seven or more persons have claims against the same particular respondent.' 'Whether a representative applicant must personally have a claim against each respondent in a representative proceeding involving multiple respondents.' 'Whether the proceeding was competent against respondents against whom the applicants conceded they had no personal claim.' 'Whether the applicants should be given further time to show that seven or more persons had claims against the first respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants conceded they personally had no claim against the respondents other than the first respondent, they lacked standing under s 33D to bring a representative proceeding against those respondents, and the proceeding as against each of them had to be dismissed with costs. As to the first respondent, although it did not yet appear that seven or more persons had claims against it, the applicants had identified at least four such persons and investigations were incomplete, so the further hearing of the first respondent's motion was adjourned, with the applicants to pay specified costs caused by the adjournment.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's motion was adjourned; the proceeding against the other respondents was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["In relation to the notice of motion of the first respondent, the further hearing of that motion be adjourned to a date to be fixed with the judge's associate in November or December 1997." "The applicants pay the first respondent's costs of the hearings on 4 September 1997 and on 24 June 1997." 'In relation to the...