AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose, Caitlin Sheehy and Sarah Aljassim, Clayton Utz
no certification requirement for Australian class actions – meaning that once a class action that meets the basic requirements is commenced, a class action is on foot unless the defendants can convince the court that representative proceed - ings are an inappropriate vehicle for the dispute in question. Class actions in Australia are very rarely “declassed” in this manner. 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims In recent years, Australia has seen a number of class actions concerning product liability claims. A selection of those cases is included here. Allergan Breast Implants Class Action In November 2024, a representative proceeding was commenced by William Roberts Lawyers on behalf of women who allege that breast implants and tissue expanders breached the guarantee of acceptable quality. The matter is in pre-trial stage. Bayer Essure Class Action In July 2019, a representative proceeding was commenced by Slater & Gordon on behalf of women who are alleged to have suffered injury as a result of using the Essure contraceptive device. Trial in this matter commenced in April 2023 in the Supreme Court of Victoria and con - cluded in August 2023. Judgment was handed down in December 2024, with the Supreme Court dismissing each of the group’s claims. Combustible Cladding Class Action Two class actions have been commenced by William Roberts Lawyers, funded by IMF Bentham, on behalf of owners of buildings who have suffered or will suffer financial loss due to the need to remove and replace Alucobond PE and Vitrabond PE combustible cladding prod - ucts. The claimants seek to recover the cost of
rectification, loss of property value and the legal cost of experts from the product manufacturers. Trial for the Alucobond class action concluded in 2024 and judgment is currently reserved. Mesh Implant Class Action In 2012, a representative proceeding was com - menced by Shine Lawyers on behalf of Austral - ian women who alleged injuries as a result of pelvic mesh implants. The first-instance trial in the pelvic mesh class action was held in the Fed - eral Court of Australia in 2017. Judgment was delivered in late 2019 in favour of three appli - cants. An appeal in respect of the trial judgment was heard by the full court of the federal court in February 2021, with judgment delivered in March 2021 in favour of the three applicants. The appellants sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. This application was rejected in November 2021. In March 2023, the federal court approved a settlement between the parties for AUD300million. Numerous class actions have been filed on behalf of women not captured in the original proceedings against other manufacturers of pelvic mesh. Roundup Three competing class actions were com - menced in 2019 and 2020 in relation to the weedkiller, Roundup. In June 2020, the federal court ruled that the latest of those class actions (commenced by Maurice Blackburn) ought to proceed, in preference over the competing claims. The hearing of this matter concluded in January 2024 and judgment was handed down in July 2024, with the court dismissing each of the group’s claims. Automotive Class Actions There have been numerous class actions against Australian automotive companies in recent years for a wide range of issues, including emissions
28
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook