Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

Feb 20, 2025 | Publication

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved allegations that Waller Legal failed to adequately advise clients regarding their claims for damages for loss of earning capacity in abuse compensation cases.

Defendant’s Application to End the Group Proceeding

Waller Legal sought to have the case de-certified as a class action, arguing that each group member’s claim was factually distinct. The firm contended that the circumstances of each client’s case, the advice they received, and the merits of their individual claims varied too significantly for a collective proceeding to be appropriate.

In contrast, the plaintiff argued that Waller Legal had a consistent and erroneous approach to advising clients on economic loss claims, which would have affected all group members similarly. The claim against Waller Legal was brought under contract, tort, and the Australian Consumer Law.

Court’s Rationale for Dismissing the Class Action

Justice Gorton ruled in favour of Waller Legal, determining that the proceeding should not continue as a group action due to the high degree of individual differences in each claim. In his judgment, Gorton J noted:

“The common questions of law are either not in dispute or not likely to be the subject of dispute. The claim of each group member for damages from Waller Legal is distinct and will depend on a detailed assessment of the actual advice that each group member was given, the legal context at that time, and the merits of their underlying claim.”

The court found that a class action would not lead to significant efficiencies in resolving the claims. Given the complexity and individual nature of each case, the judge concluded that a class proceeding was not the most effective way to address the claims.

Impact on Group Members

The decision affects approximately 700 group members, including 61 clients of Rightside Legal. While the ruling does not preclude individual claims from proceeding, it may pose challenges for some claimants. Justice Gorton acknowledged that some group members might face statute-of-limitations issues or receive less in penalty interest than they would have under a group proceeding. However, he held that such consequences did not outweigh the necessity of terminating the class action.

This decision reinforces the court’s discretion under section 33N of the Supreme Court Act to discontinue group proceedings where individual differences outweigh common issues. It highlights the challenges of pursuing class actions in cases involving varied factual circumstances and individual legal assessments.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

How is an Easement Created by the Court?

In New South Wales, the Court may make an order imposing an easement over land if the easement is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of other land that will have the benefit of the easement. Section 88K of the Conveyancing Act...

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...