Dorajay Pty Limited v Aristocrat Leisure Limited [2005] FCA 1483

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dorajay Pty Limited v Aristocrat Leisure Limited [2005] FCA 1483 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – abuse of the Court's process – maintenance and champerty – whether litigation funder has control of the proceeding – relationship between the applicant, its solicitors and the litigation funder – distinction between whether an allegedly champertous agreement is enforceable and whether the proceeding is an abuse of the Court's process PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether the proceeding ought to continue as a representative proceeding – power to order that the proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding under s 33N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether representative proceeding will not provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims – whether it is inappropriate that the claims be pursued by means of a representative proceeding – whether in the interests of justice to make such an order – role of the opt out procedure under Part IVA – comparison between opt out and opt in procedures PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – intervention by a non-party – application by litigation funder to intervene pursuant to O 6 r 17 of the Federal Court Rules – leave to intervene on a limited basis granted EVIDENCE – admissibility – opinion evidence – whether opinion evidence – whether expert evidence – expert evidence based on experience – evidence ruled admissible pursuant to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12BB, 12DA Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 674, 769C, 1041H, Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 76, 79, 80 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 23, 33C, 33D, 33E, 33H, 33J, 33L, 33M, 33N, 33V, 33W, 33X, 33Z, 33ZB, 33ZE, 33ZF, 33ZG, 33ZJ, 43 Federal Court of Australia (Amendment) Act 1991 (Cth) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) Trade Practices Act (Cth), s 51A, 52 Federal Court Rules, O 6 r 17, O 11 r 16, O 20 r 2, O 21 and O 46 r 7A Supreme Court Rules (NSW), Pt 8 r 13 Abraham v Thompson [1997] 4 All ER 362 referred to Adler v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 46 ACSR 504 referred to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chats House Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 250 cited BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 211 ALR 523 referred to Bright v Femcare Ltd (2002) 195 ALR 574 discussed Clairs Keeley (a Firm) v Treacy (2003) 28 WAR 139 discussed Clairs Keeley (a Firm) v Treacy [2004] WASCA 277 discussed Clairs Keeley (a Firm) v Treacy [2005] WASCA 86 discussed Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd (2000) 122 FCR 168 referred to Elfic Ltd v Macks [2003] 2 Qd R 125 referred to Faryab v Smyth [1998] EWCA Civ 1416 discussed Fostif Pty Ltd v Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 83 discussed Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321 distinguished Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 discussed Hunter Valley Community Investments Pty Ltd v Bell (2001) 37 ACSR 326 cited In re Trepca Mines Ltd (No 2) [1963] Ch 199 referred to Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No. 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 referred to King v AG Australia Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 980 discussed Magic Menu Systems Pty Ltd v AFA Facilitation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 261 discussed Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 distinguished Milfull v Terranora Lakes Country Club Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-642 referred to Neowarra v Western Australia (No 1) (2003) 134 FCR 208 applied QPSX Ltd v Ericsson Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) (2005) 219 ALR 1 referred to R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317 cited Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516 referred to Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 referred to Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance [2003] FCA 1366 referred to Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 455 referred to Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc [2000] EWCA 36 discussed Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co (No 2) [1999] 3 All ER 822 referred to Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 55 IPR 354 applied Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 796 discussed Walton v Gardner (1993) 177 CLR 378 cited Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 3) [2000] FCA 1438 referred to Williams v FAI Home Security Pty Ltd (No 5) [2001] FCA 399 discussed Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 cited Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd (1999) 199 CLR 255 cited