AUSTRALIAN CLASS ACTIONS: shine

Showing posts with label shine. Show all posts

02 April

Shine Lawyers: One of Australia's leading class action law firms

From the Shine Lawyers website:

Class Actions

Sometimes a wrongdoing can affect more than one person. If this happens, our legal team can make a group claim on behalf of everyone affected. This is known as a class action.

Class actions allow individual claims to be brought together in a single action against a defendant. Joining a class action can speed up the legal process and reduce hassle and cost.

A class action can bring to account a wrongdoer who causes widespread harm. If the case is successful, the Court can fairly divide the compensation amount between the group.

Legislation varies between Australian states and territories so it’s important that you’re represented by a law firm with knowledge and experience in this area.

Shine Lawyers provide legal services on a No Win No Fee* basis and can help you find out if you have a claim for compensation.

*Conditions apply

How do I start a class action?

Class actions take place in the Federal Court and State Supreme Courts of Australia.

There are three criteria that need to be fulfilled for the lawsuit to take place:

- There must be 7 or more people claiming;
- From the same, or similar, event/circumstances; and
- The claim must relate to at least one common issue of law or fact.

Class actions in Australia work on an opt-out model. This means that all potential claimants become members of the action whether they intended to participate or not. These members are bound by the judgment of the court or settlement unless they opt-out. If you are involved in a class action you will be notified.

Who is the Class Actions Team?

Shine Lawyers' Class Action team includes some of the firm’s most experienced special counsel, solicitors and support staff, including law clerks and paralegals.

Investigations and Class Actions

Current Investigations and Class Actions

Successful Class Actions
Arundel Suntown Tip Class Action
DePuy/Johnson & Johnson Hip Replacement
Quakers Hill Nursing Home Class Action
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) Class Action
Wickham Securities Sandhurst

Investigations No Longer Proceeding
Audi and Volkswagen Investigation

Further Information

For further on information, see the following:

What is a class action?
The benefits of class actions
How to take part in a class action

Shine Lawyers' website: Click here

01 April

Shine Lawyers: Traditional owners file class action against the Commonwealth over contamination of Indigenous land at Wreck Bay

Media Release from Shine Lawyers

Indigenous Australians whose land was "negligently" contaminated by the historic use of toxic firefighting foam on the South Coast of New South Wales have filed a class action against the Department of Defence.

The substance, known as PFAS, leached into the soil and waterways, damaging culturally significant sites in Wreck Bay, negatively impacting the value of the land.

“Shine Lawyers has filed the action in the Federal Court on behalf of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community," said Class Actions Practice Leader Joshua Aylward.

This will be the fourth PFAS Class Action filed against the Commonwealth by Shine Lawyers.

"Our claim will allege that the Commonwealth negligently allowed contaminants within the fire-fighting foam to escape from the HMAS Creswell and the Jervis Bay Range Facility bases, which has considerably impacted the value of the surrounding land, and adversely affected the community’s connection to country," Mr Aylward said.

“The people of Wreck Bay have been living in the South Coast region since before British settlement and as a result of this contamination, locals fear that the next generation will lose a spiritual connection to the water and land, that has been cultivated there for hundreds of years,” he said.

The Indigenous group in this ecologically and culturally rich environment regard the inland waters, rivers, wetlands and sea as something intimately attached to their homes and properties.

The Australian Defence Force commenced a detailed site investigation at HMAS Creswell and Jervis Bay Range Facility in March 2017, with the results detecting PFAS in surface water, groundwater and sediment around the base.

The report found widespread PFAS contamination in groundwater both on and off-base, exceeding health-based recommendations for drinking water.

“In 2018, a Parliamentary Inquiry into PFAS contamination recommended that compensation be paid to people living on land contaminated by PFAS from defence sites, but the Wreck Bay community hasn’t seen a dollar, and probably won’t without legal intervention” said Aylward.

Local man gives up job to defend “God's country”

James Williams who has lived in Wreck Bay on and off for forty nine years, has given up fulltime employment to pursue this class action.

“I’ve put everything on hold to make sure that my community and I, see justice,” he said.

He is currently fathering eight children with his partner (four of his own), and he mourns the fact that these children, will never know the land as intimately as he has, over almost half a century.

“You have to take into consideration our cultural background and how we connect to the land, no money will compensate us for the loss of this spiritual connection.

“We look at the land like it’s our mother and you know everyone has great respect for their mother. We can’t just pack up and move to another area and replace her. She is sacred.

“The history within Booderee National Park goes back thousands of years, before any white man came here. When your identity is taken away from you, you are nothing. You have nothing left.

“People come to our land and call it God’s country because it’s so beautiful. The Government has just crucified our country.”

“The land will give you back what you give it. You have to give it your respect and the Government has poisoned it with PFAS instead,” said Williams.

PFAS explained

PFAS are a class of harmful chemicals used by the Department of Defence for around 40 years from the 1970’s in firefighting foam. The chemical does not naturally break down, and is known to accumulate in the body, leading to high concentrations over time.

PFAS soil and groundwater contamination can lead to high levels of the chemical in drinking water, plants, animals and people.

While the health impacts of exposure to PFAS are still being researched, many PFAS experts have linked the toxin to various diseases, including cancer.

About the class action

The class action, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council & Anor v The Commonwealth of Australia was filed in the Federal Court in Sydney.

It is believed approximately 500 indigenous locals have been impacted by the contamination.

This is a Shine Lawyers funded action.

The class action is claiming for three types of loss caused by the PFAS contamination: loss in property value, inconvenience, distress and vexation; and cultural loss.

This is the fourth PFAS related class action, for a tenth community, to be filed by Shine Lawyers.

The investigation for Wreck Bay follows the successful class actions for Oakey and Katherine by Shine Lawyers against the Department of Defence, for the contamination of soil and groundwater which led to the decline of property values.

For more information, click here.

31 March

Thousands of Aussie tradies could be sued for $642 million if class action succeeds

The key points:

- Shine Lawyers organising class action against ISGM for 4,000 maintenance staff

- Claims they were 'sham contractors' denied leave pay and superannuation

- But ISGM argues they got $61 an hour compared with $35 on employee award

- Therefore if they win the lawsuit, company will counter-sue for the difference.

Thousands of tradies have been warned they could be sued for $642 million if they win a class action lawsuit against a Telstra contractor.

Shine Lawyers is building a massive claim against ISG Management, also known as Tandem, claiming the workers should have been treated as employees.

Instead, they were employed as individual contractors and had to pay for their tools and transport to and from sites where they did Telstra maintenance.

The lawsuit, led by former contractor Robert Mutch, demands back payment of sick leave, annual leave, and superannuation in accordance with the relevant award.

However, ISGM warned it would be forced to counter-sue all the tradies if the claim was successful because it paid them far more than the award.

Tradies have until May 7 to opt out, according to a letter they will be sent, or they will automatically become part of the lawsuit and could be counter-sued.

Documents filed with the Federal Court in Melbourne by ISGM argue it paid more than $1.55 billion to 3,450 workers in 2011 to 2020.

The company's modelling suggested the subcontractors were paid an average of $61 an hour compared to a casual award rate of just $35 an hour.

On average they earned $113,718 a year in the 2018 financial year, compared to $59,000 plus superannuation for a casual working full -time hours.

'This would mean that ISGM would effectively claim back up to $1.55 billion paid to thousands of Australian small businesses over the last nine years and would then pay the award-based employee entitlements to individual employees,' it said.

'This could be catastrophic for small business operators.'

ISGM said it could not afford to effectively pay workers twice for the same work, and would have no choice but to sue for the difference.

Full story: The Daily Mail Australia

30 March

Class action update: Blue Sky action push gets a boost

Momentum for a class action against Blue Sky has accelerated after a small shareholder obtained access to the collapsed fund manager’s books.

The investor, David Furniss, an accountant, also is being allowed by Queensland’s Supreme Court to view key insurance documents covering director’s indemnity.

The granting of rights to inspect investment, audit and insurance documents could help determine the viability of class-action lawsuits over the failure of ASX-listed Blue Sky Alternative Investments.

“This decision is important because it finally gives us access to Blue Sky’s books and records,” said Piper Alderman partner Lachlan Lamont, whose firm initiated the Supreme Court action.

“We can now conduct a forensic analysis of Blue Sky’s accounts and valuation procedures which will help us particularise the shareholders’ claims.”

Piper Alderman, Shine Lawyers and Gadens are among law firms investigating Blue Sky’s accounts to see if any questions arise about disclosures to investors in the former market-darling, which was once valued at more than $1 billion.

“We are still investigating and I am aware of that decision ... which I think is a good decision because ultimately it will probably save everyone time and costs if access to key documents is granted earlier rather than later,” Shine class actions practice leader and former Australian Securities and Investments Commission senior lawyer Craig Allsopp said.

Brisbane-based Blue Sky oversaw funds with assets from a burrito chain to property investments, posting rocketing profits and share prices.

But the wheels fell off after Glaucus Research, short-sellers that make money from share prices falling, dispatched research in March 2018 casting doubt on areas from how Blue Sky was valuing investments to the amount of assets under management.

Blue Sky rejected the claims but tumbled into administration in May 2019.

Justice Graeme Crow, in a decision handed down in Rockhampton last week, said that Mr Furniss had purchased 722 shares in Blue Sky at $13.80 per share, $9963.60 in total, on January 18, 2018. “Some 15 months later his shareholding was worthless,” he wrote.

“[Precedent] cases demonstrate that the pursuit of a reasonable suspicion of a breach of duty is a proper purpose for a substantial shareholder, and in my view, it is also a proper purpose ... for a small shareholder, despite the quantum being much smaller, the rights of the shareholders are the same.”

Justice Crow wrote that there was “substantial support” for the conclusion that there was a case for investigation based on some of Blue Sky’s own market statements after the short-selling critique.

That included Blue Sky stating in April that “it is clear that Blue Sky has fallen short of market and shareholder expectations around transparency and disclosure”.

Another announcement Justice Crow cited was Blue Sky in May saying an “immediate priority is to rebuild trust with stakeholders by making significant changes to the business and management model”.

The court granted access to documents from July 1, 2015, to May 20, 2019, the day Blue Sky was placed into voluntary administration.

“Mr Furniss is not a stranger to Blue Sky, but rather a shareholder who has a right to inspect documents if he can prove, as he has, that he is acting in good faith and for a proper purpose,” Justice Crow wrote.

Mr Furniss has been granted access to look at any indemnity insurance policies that covered Blue Sky or any of its directors and executives between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. The quantum of any insurance policies would outline what a potential class action could go to court to seek damages for.

However, Mr Allsop said shareholders looking to mount an action against Blue Sky and former directors or executives will likely have to wait for a deed of company arrangement, which has been in place since June 2019 and included a moratorium on claims against the company, to be executed or come off. It will also likely require leave from the court to launch a class action.

Former Blue Sky director and head of venture capital Elaine Stead, who was successful in defamation proceedings brought against The Australian Financial Review over two columns in 2019, gave testimony in her action that touched on Blue Sky’s legal requirements about disclosure of information.

Under cross-examination by defence barrister, Sandy Dawson, Dr Stead said an article published by the Financial Review that had previously been published in June 2017 was “incorrect”.

That Financial Review article stated Blue Sky’s $3 billion of assets were evenly split across property, real assets, such as infrastructure, and finally private equity and venture capital.

Full story: AFR

22 March

New pelvic mesh implants class action against Boston Scientific launched by Shine Lawyers

Lawyers behind a landmark class action over damaging Johnson & Johnson pelvic mesh implants have filed a new suit on behalf of women allegedly harmed by other pelvic implants.

Multinational medical device maker Boston Scientific is accused of acting negligently and selling implants that were not fit for purpose or of acceptable quality, the case filed in the Federal Court on Monday alleges.

One of the women included in the class action says she has been in constant pain since an Obtryx sling was implanted to reposition her bladder in 2012.

"It has been 9 years of suffering," Deborah Stanford said in a statement on Monday.

"If I knew how hard this was going to be, I never would have gone through it."

Ms Stanford has had nine operations, including one that reduced her bladder capacity to 15 per cent, and now has her husband act as her full-time carer.

She is on strong pain relief and says urinating "feels like a piece of sandpaper is being rubbed down there."

The statement of claim alleges the devices - supplied on the advice of the patients' treating doctor to treat pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence - caused chronic pain, organ damage, new incontinence issues and other complications.