Farey v National Australia Bank Ltd [2016] FCA 340

Farey v National Australia Bank Ltd [2016] FCA 340

The Court approved the settlement because it was fair and reasonable as between applicants, group members, and the respondent, and as between group members. The distribution scheme reflected methodological soundness in allocation, no group member objected, reimbursement to lead applicants was proportionate, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Application for Settlement Approval Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Settlement approved; proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs; confidentiality orders made.
Legal Topics
['application to Approve Court Settlement' 'exception Fees' 'distribution Scheme' 'statutory Authority of Representative Applicants' 'reimbursement of Lead Applicants' 'confidentiality Orders']
['class Actions' 'banking and Finance Law' 'consumer Law'] ['application to Approve Court Settlement' 'exception Fees' 'distribution Scheme' 'statutory Authority of Representative Applicants' 'reimbursement of Lead Applicants' 'confidentiality Orders']

Source-derived case record

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 Settlement Approval Under S 33 V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as between group members and respondent' 'Whether the distribution scheme is fair and reasonable as between group members' 'Authority of applicants to release on behalf of group members non-pleaded claims' 'Approval of settlement sum, legal costs, and reimbursement of applicants']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court approved the settlement because it was fair and reasonable as between applicants, group members, and the respondent, and as between group members. The distribution scheme reflected methodological soundness in allocation, no group member objected, reimbursement to lead applicants was proportionate, and the releases were within the applicants' authority and covered both pleaded and certain non-pleaded claims as permitted by statute.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved; proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs; confidentiality orders made.

Orders

  • ['Settlement approved on terms of Settlement Deed and Settlement Distribution Scheme.' 'Applicants authorised to give effect to the Settlement Deed on behalf of group members.' 'Proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs and dismissal operates as a discharge and bar to related claims.' 'MBPL appointed Settlement...