Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83

Lam v Rolls Royce PLC (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 83

The plaintiff's discovery motion was dismissed because no evidence was provided explaining why the broad categories of discovery were required, the requested discovery appeared likely to be time consuming and expensive, and there was a real concern that the costs of litigating liability could be disproportionate to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Class Action Proceeding Concerning Alleged Psychological Injury Arising From an Engine Failure on a Flight / Interlocutory Applications for Discovery, Class Closure, Particulars of Loss, Revised Opt Out Notices and Directions
Outcome
The plaintiff's discovery motion was dismissed; the Court indicated it would make orders for revised opt out notices, registration/class closure processes, basic particulars of loss, and further directions; costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['discovery and Proportionality of Costs' 'class Closure Orders' 'opt Out Notices' 'registration of Group Members' 'particulars of Loss for Mediation' 'mediation in Class Actions']
['civil Procedure' 'class Actions' 'discovery'] ['discovery and Proportionality of Costs' 'class Closure Orders' 'opt Out Notices' 'registration of Group Members' 'particulars of Loss for Mediation' 'mediation in Class Actions']

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

Class Action Proceeding Concerning Alleged Psychological Injury Arising From an Engine Failure on a Flight / Interlocutory Applications for Discovery, Class Closure, Particulars of Loss, Revised Opt Out Notices and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted discovery of 22 categories of documents from Rolls Royce.' 'Whether class closure orders should be made requiring potential group members to register in order to participate in any settlement.' 'Whether overseas potential group members who do not register should be removed from the class, while Australian potential group members remain class members subject to limitations on participation in settlement without leave.' 'Whether potential class members should provide basic particulars of injury and loss to facilitate mediation.' 'Whether revised opt out notices should be sent because of defects in the earlier notices.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's discovery motion was dismissed because no evidence was provided explaining why the broad categories of discovery were required, the requested discovery appeared likely to be time consuming and expensive, and there was a real concern that the costs of litigating liability could be disproportionate to the value of the claims when mediation had not been exhausted. To facilitate mediation, class closure and basic particulars processes were warranted, but overseas potential group members who did not register should be removed from the class because of concerns about notice, unfamiliarity with the Australian legal system and possible effects on foreign rights, while Australian...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's discovery motion was dismissed; the Court indicated it would make orders for revised opt out notices, registration/class closure processes, basic particulars of loss, and further directions; costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 8 January 2015 be dismissed." 'On or before 27 February 2015 the plaintiff serve the defendant with a list of the persons and crew whom he contends were aboard the flight referred to in [4] of the Amended Statement of Claim.' 'The parties confer in relation to the form of...