Simpson v Thorn Australia Pty Ltd trading as Radio Rentals (No 5) [2019] FCA 2196

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Simpson v Thorn Australia Pty Ltd trading as Radio Rentals (No 5) [2019] FCA 2196 File number: NSD 448 of 2017

Judge: LEE J

Date of judgment: 20 December 2019

Catchwords: REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – application for approval of settlement pursuant to s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – settlement approved EQUITY – consideration of the application of cy-près doctrine or analogous principles in relation to distribution of settlement monies – need to prove distribution of monies to group members would be impracticable or impossible

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1796 (Cth) Pt IVA, ss 5, 33V, 33ZF Stored Communications Act 18 USC § 2701

Cases cited: Abbott v Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 462; (2019) 369 ALR 512 Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Razzi (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 64 Frank v Gaos No 17-961; 139 S. Ct. 1041; 203 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2019) Gee v Pritchard [1818] 36 ER 670; (1818) 2 Swans 402 In re Diplock; Diplock v Wintle [1948] Ch 465 In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig. 87 F. Supp. 3d 1122, 1128, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2015) Liverpool City Council v McGraw-Hill Financial, Inc (now known as S&P Global Inc) [2018] FCA 1289 Simpson v Thorn Australia Pty Ltd trading as Radio Rentals (No 2) [2019] FCA 838 Comment, "A Revaluation of Cy Pres" (1939) 49 Yale L J 303 Geronime, "The Cy Pres Doctrine in Wisconsin" (1965) 49 Marq L Rev 387 Morabito, V, "Lessons from Australia on Class Action Reform in New Zealand" (2018) 24 NZBLQ 178 Pearson, E G, "Reforming the Reform of the Cy Pres Proposal to Protect Testator Intent" (2006) 90(1) Marq L Rev 127 Redish, M H, Julian, P and Zyontz, S, "Cy Pres Relief and the Pathologies of the Modern Class Action: A Normative and Empirical Analysis" (2010) 62 Fla L Rev 617 Story, J, Equity Jurisprudence (14th ed, 1918) §1518ff Wasserman, R, "Cy Pres in Class Action Settlements" 88 S Cal Law Rev 97