2020 Litigation Forecast - Class actions: A new ‘opt-out’ era?
Last year, we predicted developments in New
Zealand’s class action litigation regime, which
has not kept pace with developments in other
common law jurisdictions. We have not been
- In June 2019, the Law Commission announced that it was
reactivating its Class Actions and Litigation Funding project.
- In September 2019, the Court of Appeal issued its
landmark decision in Ross v Southern Response, in
which – for the first time in New Zealand – it made an
‘opt-out’ order, meaning that all potential claimants are
automatically included as plaintiffs in the case unless
they take a positive step to opt out of the group. The
decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Two recent Australian decisions are also likely to provide
guidance in New Zealand:
- In October 2019, the Federal Court of Australia issued
the first-ever shareholder class action judgment in
Australia. Significantly, the Court accepted the ‘market-based
causation’ theory – meaning that shareholder
class action plaintiffs need only prove that the market
(as a whole) was misled, so that they do not need to
prove that each individual plaintiff was misled – which
is much more difficult.
- And in December 2019, the High Court of Australia
issued its decision in the BMW and Westpac cases,
finding that neither the Federal nor New South Wales
procedural rules permitted the making of ‘common
fund’ orders, which require all plaintiffs in a class to
contribute to the costs of funding the litigation.
A busy year ahead
In 2020, we predict that we will see:
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v Southern Response, clarifying whether the Court of Appeal’s
decision to permit ‘opt-out’ orders will be a lasting
change (we predict that it will)
- Progress in the Law Commission’s reactivated Class
Actions and Litigation Funding project
- A substantive appellate decision in the Kiwifruit PSA
case against the Ministry for Primary Industries
- Interlocutory decisions on representative action
procedure in other cases
- A decision on common fund orders, which will impact
on litigation funding
We may also see an increase in the number of class
actions being pursued, as ‘opt-out’ orders and other
developments make them more attractive to plaintiffs
and to funders, at least for the time being.
At last, a class action regime for New Zealand?
On 18 December 2019, the Law Commission released
terms of reference for its Class Actions and Litigation
Funding project. According to the Commission, its review
will include, but not be limited to:
- Whether and to what extent the law should allow class
- If class actions should be allowed, how they should be
regulated, for example in relation to:
- the scope of a class actions regime;
- the criteria and process for commencing a class action,including how a “class” should be defined;
- management of class action proceedings; and
- damages, costs and settlement.
- Whether and to what extent the law should allow
litigation funding, having regard to the torts of
maintenance and champerty;
- The role of the courts, if any, in overseeing litigation
- Whether and to what extent litigation funders and/or
funding arrangements should be regulated, for example
in relation to:
- the nature and extent of the litigation funder’s recovery;
- the powers and responsibilities of litigation funders;
- the potential for conflicts of interest; and
- disclosure requirements.
While the Law Commission has left open the possibility
that reform will not be required, we would be surprised if
there was no development. Properly considered reform
would reduce the need for costly litigation over the
procedural aspects of class actions, improve access to
justice and increase certainty for litigants.
Establishing the rules without a formal framework
The New Zealand courts continue to develop a procedural
framework for class actions in New Zealand ahead of
formal reform. We think that the volume of future class
actions in New Zealand is likely to depend, to a large
degree, on whether:
- ‘Opt-out’ orders are to remain the norm – this will
depend upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v Southern Response
- Common fund orders are available in New Zealand.
Such orders require all members of the claimant group
to contribute to litigation funding costs, regardless
of whether they have signed a litigation funding
agreement. For obvious reasons, common fund orders
make class actions more attractive to litigation funders.
We expect that the availability of common fund orders
will be decided by the High Court, in the first instance,
in the Ross v Southern Response case, where an
application for such an order has been made.
Of perhaps more academic interest is whether the New
Zealand courts will adopt the ‘market-based causation‘
theory for shareholder class actions, as in the Myer case in
the Federal Court of Australia. The New Zealand Supreme
Court touched on the issue in Houghton v Saunders. In
relation to Mr Houghton, the Court remarked:
“‘On the faith of’ means in reliance on the truth of the publicly registered document, which informs the market, but does not require that investors have seen or read the prospectus”.
Whether or not this approach applies to all members
of the class in that case will be determined by the High
Court in stage 2 of the trial, that may be heard in 2020.
The outcome will be less relevant to shares purchased
pursuant to a regulated offer document under the
Financial Markets Conduct Act, that contains a rebuttable
presumption that purchasers have suffered loss where
the shares have dropped in value and the misstatement is
We expect that 2020 will be an exciting year for class
actions in New Zealand.
Ross v Southern Response – paving the way without a framework
In September 2019, the Court of Appeal issued
a landmark decision permitting the plaintiffs in
Ross v Southern Response to progress a class
action on an opt out basis. We cover the case
in detail on our website.
Where an ‘opt-out’ order is made, everyone with
the same type of claim as the representative
plaintiff will automatically be a class member,
unless they expressly opt out of the group.
This was the first order of its kind in New Zealand.
The Court was not troubled by the absence
of a legislative framework for class actions to
make the order. The Court indicated that ‘opt-out’
orders will be the norm and whether they
are appropriate will be decided based on the
circumstances of each case and the interests of
“We are satisfied that there is no jurisdictional barrier to the making of ‘opt-out’ orders in representative proceedings. Nor is there any policy reason why they should be exceptional. It all depends on the case. In most cases there will
be compelling access to justice reasons for making an ‘opt-out’ order. We do not consider that it is necessary — or appropriate — to wait for detailed legislation about class actions to be enacted before the court is willing to make such orders. The courts have the necessary powers to manage the procedural issues that will arise in the context of opt out representative proceedings.”
The decision has been appealed. We expect
the Supreme Court to hear and determine the
appeal in 2020.