Class actions have a number of specialised rules and procedures that differ from regular litigation.
Class actions in Australia
What is a class action?
A class action (also known as a
“representative proceeding”) is a
legal procedure that enables the
similar claims of a number of
persons (group members) against
the same defendant(s) to be
determined together. In a class
action, a claim is brought by a
representative plaintiff (or plaintiffs)
on their own behalf as well as on
behalf of group members, through
consideration of a series of
"common questions".
Role of the Court
Class actions have a number of
specialised rules and procedures
that differ from regular litigation.
Plaintiffs can only commence class
actions in higher Courts: the
Federal Court of Australia and
most (but not all) state Supreme
Courts.
Because a class action can affect
the rights of potential group
members (many of whom may not
be taking an active role in the case)
the Court holds a special
"protectorate" role. This includes
supervision by the Court of
requirements to give notice to
potential group members of the
existence of and key steps in the
class action.
The class
The representative plaintiff must
define the class in their written
claim filed with the Court. Anyone
who meets that definition is then
considered a group member,
unless they advise the Court that
they do not wish to be part of the
class by submitting an opt-out
notice to the Court. Group
members who do not opt out are
bound by any Court judgment or
settlement.
The representative plaintiff
instructs the lawyers and makes
decisions about the running of the
class action like a plaintiff would in
any other litigation. On the other
hand, group members do not
usually play an active role in the
proceedings.
Some class actions are backed by
a litigation funder who provides
financial support for the running of
the case in return for a percentage
fee of any outcome (in addition to
recovery of the costs they have
paid on behalf of the class).
To read the full article, please click here.
Regulation of in-service safety for automated
vehicles: due diligence obligations for Australian
ADSE executive officers
Although executive officers could
have new obligations under the
NTC proposal, Australian-based
ADSE officers who are not in a
position to influence ADS safety
will not be liable for managing
risks that are outside of their
control.
A national automated vehicle
safety law in Australia is
currently being developed, with
further recommendations set to
be made in the first half of 2021.
A key recommendation from the
National Transport Commission
(NTC) is that executive officers
of entities responsible for
importing automated vehicles
hold some responsibility for the
in-service safety of automated
vehicles.
In practice, much of the
responsibility for in-service
safety of automated vehicles is
likely to be placed on the
manufacturer, but under the
proposed approach, executive
officers of automated vehicle
importers may also be required
to ensure compliance with any
new obligations relating to
automated vehicles, and may be
held liable for failures to take
reasonable actions to ensure
such compliance.
Background: the NTC's
proposals and discussion
paper
Since January 2019, the NTC
has been developing and
assessing a range of regulatory
options to assure the safe
operation of automated vehicles
while they are in service.
Following a series of
consultations, the NTC
recommended a regulatory
approach to the Commonwealth,
State, Territory and New
Zealand Ministers making up the
Transport and Infrastructure
Council. This approach includes
a specialised national regulator,
a general safety duty on
Automated Driving System
Entities (ADSEs) and due
diligence obligations on
executive officers of ADSEs to
ensure ADSEs comply with their
general safety duty.
For practical purposes, an ADSE
is, in most cases, likely to be the
national sales company
responsible for importing and
distributing the relevant
Automated Vehicles in Australia.
To read the full article, please click here.
ACCC opens door to OEMs offering extended warranty periods tied to
vehicle servicing exclusively within authorised dealer networks – but
with a catch
The ACCC has allowed
Mitsubishi to offer extended
warranty periods on condition
consumers service their
vehicles exclusively within the
Mitsubishi dealer network.
This will, no doubt, be of
interest to many more in the
industry and could well be the
catalyst for similar initiatives
being offered by others
moving forward, though the
ACCC has flagged that it
could revisit its decision if it
perceives over time that the
arrangements are materially
harming competition.
On 18 December 2020, the
ACCC announced its decision
not to object to Mitsubishi
Motors Australia Limited
(MMAL) offering an additional
five years on its
manufacturers' warranty to
customers who commit to
servicing their vehicles
exclusively within the
Mitsubishi Authorised Dealer
Network.
MMAL lodged a notification of
exclusive dealing with the
ACCC in early September and
the ACCC's decision to allow
the notification to stand
follows a series of public
consultations and numerous
submissions received by the
ACCC raising concerns about
the potential for the
arrangement to significantly
harm competition from
independent service providers
outside of the MMAL network.
Although the ACCC's decision
could open the door for other
importers and distributors to
similarly strengthen their own
authorised dealer networks by
encouraging or offering
incentives to customers to
service their vehicles within
their respective authorised
dealer networks only, the
ACCC did sound a warning on
this front.
In announcing its decision, the
ACCC specifically noted that,
while there is no basis at
present to conclude that the
notified conduct has the
purpose, effect or likely effect
of substantially lessening
competition, the ACCC
recognises the importance of
competition provided by
independent mechanics and
could revoke the notification
at a later date if, following
implementation of the
warranty arrangement, there
is evidence that it is materially
harming competition to the
point that the public benefit of
Mitsubishi (or others) offering
extended warranty periods
does not outweigh the public
detriment of the condition that
consumers service their
vehicles exclusively within the
authorised dealer networks.
To read the full article, which discusses concerns raised by the ACCC and considers what happens next, please click here.
Should the decision favour MMAL, it could well be the catalyst for similar initiatives by others.