Fuller v Allianz; Wilkinson v Allianz  VSC 581
The plaintiffs in two competing class actions relating to car dealer “add-on” insurance have successfully applied to consolidate proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria as a solution to the problem of multiplicity.
Johnson Winter & Slattery and Maurice Blackburn will now act as joint solicitors on the record for the plaintiffs to the consolidated proceeding. The decision is the first to consider consolidation in the context of a foreshadowed application for a group costs order (GCO).
Justice Nichols found that consolidation in this case would protect the interests of group members, did not prejudice the defendants, Allianz and Allianz Life Insurance, and solved the problem of multiplicity in a way that facilitates the just, efficient, timely and cost effective resolution of the dispute.
Tracy-Ann Fuller, represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery, and Jordan Wilkinson, represented by Maurice Blackburn, separately commenced overlapping representative proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court against Allianz and Allianz Life Insurance for claims arising out of the sale of “add-on” insurance products to consumers who purchased a vehicle through car dealerships.
Both plaintiffs have foreshadowed applications for a group costs order pursuant to section 33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). The regime deals with costs in class action proceedings and is the first of its kind in Australia, effectively allowing law firms to charge contingency fees as a percentage of any successful recovery, on condition that they give security for costs and will become liable for any adverse costs orders (our recent article on the first determination of a GCO application is here).
Both plaintiffs sought to consolidate the proceedings, partly as a means of avoiding a costly and drawn-out carriage dispute and to provide greater certainty and efficiency for group members who will now have their claims prosecuted in a single proceeding.
In granting the consolidation application, Justice Nichols found that there would be an immediate “meaningful, substantive benefit” for group members, whose claims will now be advanced in a single proceeding. This was to be preferred to the defendants’ proposed alternative of a contested carriage dispute and a stay of one proceeding, which would entail cost, delay and inconvenience.
Her Honour was satisfied that the proposed arrangements for the conduct of the consolidated proceeding and the question of costs would be appropriately addressed by the plaintiffs, having regard to the primacy of group members’ interests and the lack of prejudice suffered by the defendants. The critical aspects of the plaintiffs’ application were:
The defendants sought to argue that the plaintiffs’ consolidation application should be distinguished from previous decisions on multiplicity problems in class actions because of the novel issues arising from the foreshadowed GCO applications. It was submitted that a contested carriage dispute resulting in the stay of one proceeding would result in a lower GCO rate being sought by the competing plaintiffs.
Justice Nichols rejected this contention, finding that the submission was put speculatively and without evidentiary support. It was held that the costs limiting orders and proposed undertakings by the plaintiffs and their solicitors in relation to the conduct of the consolidated proceedings would remain in place even if a GCO was subsequently ordered. Further, the plaintiffs would still be required to satisfy the Court of the appropriate rate for any GCO.
In making application for a group costs order, whether in the context of a contested carriage dispute or subsequent to an order for consolidation, the plaintiffs would bear the onus of satisfying the court, on sufficient evidence, as to an appropriate rate. It is not a matter of the applicant for a GCO nominating a percentage which the court adopts.
On the question of funding, her Honour also held that the appropriate time for addressing alternative funding arrangements would be after the foreshadowed GCO application. The lack of any definitive arrangements in the event a GCO is refused was not a reason to refuse the consolidation application.
Justice Nichol’s decision highlights the “inherent flexibility” of the Court’s handling of multiple class action proceedings, a phenomena contemplated by Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions. Where consolidation is by consent between plaintiffs, cost limiting orders and protocols for the conduct of the consolidated proceedings will be crucial to address the interests of group members, the overarching purpose, and any prejudice of the defendants. If those mechanisms are deemed appropriate, the status of future funding arrangements and pending GCO applications are less likely to be determinative for the issue of consolidation.
  – .
  – .
  – .
 Johnson Winter & Slattery was the first to file a GCO application under the new regime.
Be the first to receive the latest articles, news and publications.
On 12 May, the UK High Court refused permission for environmental group ClientEarth to continue its claim against the directors of Shell plc (Directors) for their alleged failure to manage climate...
Partners Robert Johnston, Felicity Karageorge, Rena Solomonidis, Special Counsel Nicholas Briggs and Senior Associate Sara Gaertner have written the Australian chapter in The Law Reviews 7th...
On 24 March 2023, the Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Act 2022 (WA Act) commenced. The WA Act introduces an updated and more cohesive mechanism for bringing class actions in WA.