Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An attempt to hide key details of Toyota’s $750 million class action settlement was dismissed by Justice Michael Lee, who stressed that group members are entitled to their “legitimate enquiries”.
Ahead of the Federal Court of Australia approving the $750 million settlement sum, the lead applicant and Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited tried to have Justice Michael Lee agree to interim suppression or non-publication orders over the nitty-gritty of the agreement.
The class action claimed compensation for alleged defects in Toyota Hilux, Fortuner, and Prado vehicles with a 1GD-FTV or 2GD-FTV diesel engine.
Under confidentiality terms within the deed, the parties sought to restrict information on how the total settlement sum was calculated, the distribution methodology, reductions in value amounts, and the “precise basis” on which individual group member payments were calculated.
Lawyers for the applicant submitted these passages could have given rise to “stress and anxiety” to group members “who might somehow misunderstand the basis upon which the proposed settlement was reached or the proposed distribution of the settlement sum”.
“The notion that a group member should be spared access to relevant information lest it occasion perplexity or disquiet smacks of paternalism.
“An atypically curious group member is entitled to make whatever legitimate enquiries are open to the group members in making an informed decision whether to object,” Justice Lee said in his written reasons.
In the Tuesday, 13 October decision, Justice Lee referred to his judgment in Farrell v Super Retail Group, in which he emphasised the principle of open justice “is an indispensable feature of the Australian judicial system”.
While parties may discuss confidentiality, Justice Lee said they could not use private agreement to “dictate the conditions upon which a court exercising public power will receive and determine their application”.
An order to restrict group members’ access to material bearing upon the proposed settlement “is likely to be exceptional”, he added.
“Group members have a legitimate interest in understanding the proposed terms upon which the proceedings are to be resolved, the manner in which any proposed distribution will occur, and the amounts proposed to be deducted from the gross settlement sum before the balance is distributed to them,” Justice Lee said.
A hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved has been set down for 20 November.
