Nguyen v Rickhuss [2023] NSWCA 249

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nguyen v Rickhuss [2023] NSWCA 249 Hearing dates: 28 September 2023 Decision date: 26 October 2023 Before: Ward P; Leeming JA; Basten AJA Decision: 1 Grant leave to appeal. 2 Direct the applicants to file a notice of appeal in accordance with the draft notice of appeal, and otherwise dispense with the requirements as to service. 3 Dismiss the appeal. 4 The applicants to pay the costs of the first to twelfth respondents. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – representative proceedings – claims based on breast augmentation surgery performed by defendant/appellant medical practitioners – whether litigation should continue to proceed as representative proceedings – whether claims in statement of claim gave rise to substantial common questions of law and fact – whether representative plaintiffs' and group members' claims "common" or "individualistic" – where representative plaintiffs alleged that all surgery was performed according to same system, which gave rise to increased risk of harm – primary judge correct to find that statement of claim gave rise to substantial common questions of law and fact Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), Pt 10, ss 157, 161, 162, 166, 173, 175, 179, 182 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Pt IVA, s 33C(1) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(e) Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), Pt 4A, s 33C Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 8, r 13 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.19, 6.22 Cases Cited: Agnello v Heritage Care Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 838 Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485; [1993] HCA 15 Bright v Femcare Ltd [2002] FCAFC 243; 195 ALR 574 Carnie v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 398; [1995] HCA 9 Community & Public Sector Union v Crown in Right of Victoria (1999) 90 IR 4 Jameson v Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd (2009) 72 NSWLR 281; [2009] NSWCA 28 Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 27 Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v George Gill & Sons [1899] 1 Ch 55 Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd (1999) 199 CLR 255; [1999] HCA 48 Texts Cited: B Spencer, "Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, and Declining Access to Justice" (2013) 93 Boston University Law Review 441 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Van Huu Anthony Nguyen, Victor Lee, Chi-Vien Duong (aka Charles Wong), Anh Huy Tang, Napoleon Po-Han Chiu, Daniel Kwok, Pedro Miguel da Silva Valente, Farheen Ali, James Francis Christopher Kenny, Sri Balakrishnan Darshn (First to Tenth Applicants) Amy Rickhuss, Kylie Pollock, Jessica Bruen, Kirsty-Anne Rowlands, Lily Knowland, Tiffany Rutherford, Alysha Axen, Sherine Zahr, Emma Love, Candiece Gielisse (Nee Bailey), Ali Turner, Stefanie Sanchez (First to Twelfth Respondents) The Cosmetic Institute Pty Ltd (in liq) (Thirteenth Respondent) The Cosmetic Institute Parramatta Pty Ltd (in liq) (Fourteenth Respondent) TCI Bondi Junction Pty Ltd (in liq) (Fifteenth Respondent) TCI Southport Pty Ltd (in liq) (Sixteenth Respondent) Eddy Dona (Seventeenth Respondent) Niroshan Sivathasan (Eighteenth Respondent) Certain underwriters at Lloyd's subscribing to policy No. 04012 (Nineteenth Respondent) Allied World Assurance Company Ltd (Twentieth Respondent) MDA National Insurance Pty Ltd (Twenty-first Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A McInerney SC, T Prince, N Bentley (Applicants) D Graham SC, H Chiu, M Robinson (First to Twelfth Respondents) J Gooley, R Higgins (Eighteenth Respondent) J Tesarsch, N Cozens (Nineteenth Respondent) T Mehigan SC (Twentieth Respondent) N Hogan (Twenty-first Respondent)