The Victorian Supreme Court has approved the settlement of a local government class action against JLT, with the proceeding to be discontinued with no orders on costs. 

A notice was sent to participating councils last year saying the parties had agreed to settle, and advising of the opportunity to object before a court hearing scheduled for November. 

Justice Kevin Lyons says in a January 19 decision that none of the 16 group members, in addition to lead plaintiffs Moira Shire Council and Hobsons Bay City Council, opposed the proposal. 

“I am satisfied that I should approve the discontinuance of this proceeding with no further order as to costs,” he said. 

The end of the Victorian action follows JLT’s victory in a NSW class action, where councils argued the broker had breached its duties in failing to point out cheaper insurance alternatives in the market compared with its pooled scheme. 

The NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Kate Williams found JLT was not acting as a broker for individual councils in conflict with its role as an adviser for the Statewide mutual scheme. 

Justice Lyons says while the NSW and Victorian proceedings were not “precisely the same”, there was overlap of legal and evidentiary issues. 

“As a consequence, after the notice period for appeal from the NSW proceeding elapsed, the plaintiffs commenced negotiations ... to settle this proceeding. This resulted in JLT making an offer that the proceeding be discontinued with no order as to costs,” he says. 

The notice sent to councils last year said discontinuance would not affect their right to take individual action against JLT, but given time limits to bring claims they should seek legal advice as soon as possible. 

JLT sought an order on the limitation period, but Justice Lyons said its application was mainly to address any risk that the period would continue in perpetuity, which the decision found would not be the case. “JLT will have comfort from these reasons that the limitation period resumes upon notice of the filing of the notice of discontinuance, with a consequence that this proposed order is no longer necessary.” 

The decision is available here.