Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 MARCH 2022

Latest shareholder class action judgment yet another win for the defendant company

Gilchrist Connell
Explore more from Gilchrist Connell

As with the two shareholder class action judgments that preceded it, this was a win for the defending listed entity.

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Malcolm Wood
Malcolm Wood
Author LinkedIn connections

The Federal Court of Australia has recently handed down Australia's third ever securities class action decision via Bonham as Trustee for the Aucham Super Fund v Iluka Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 71. As with the two shareholder class action judgments that preceded it, the decision was a win for the defending listed entity.

Background

Iluka Resources Limited (Iluka) is an ASX listed mining and resources company. On each of 23 February 2012, 12 April 2012, and 8 May 2012, Iluka published forecasts, which included forecasts as to sales volume (together, the Announcements).1

All Announcements suggested soft market conditions, and some included disclaimers and commentary, explaining that the forward-looking statements within them were not guarantees or predictions of future performance. They also indicated that they were "provided to assist sophisticated investors with the modelling of the company, but should not be relied upon as a predictor of future performance".2

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

How To Draft A Defence And Reply

Queensland civil procedure requires defendants to respond to each factual allegation with precision—admissions, denials, or non-admissions must be properly explained, while inadequate responses risk being treated as admissions. Replies serve a distinct and limited purpose, addressing only new matters raised in the defence that could affect the claim's maintainability or introduce unexpected factual questions.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Counterclaims In Queensland Civil Proceedings: Complete Guide

When a defendant in Queensland civil litigation wishes to pursue its own claim against the plaintiff, a counterclaim provides the procedural mechanism to do so within the existing proceeding. Understanding the technical requirements for pleading, serving, and answering counterclaims—including joinder of additional parties, limitation periods, and the effect of discontinuance—is essential for both claimants and respondents navigating commercial disputes.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Matters That Must Be Specifically Pleaded In Queensland

Queensland's Uniform Civil Procedure Rules require specific matters—including fraud, breach of contract, damages, and states of mind—to be expressly pleaded with supporting material facts. This comprehensive guide examines Rule 150's requirements, explains what "specifically pleaded" means in practice, and demonstrates through case law how deficient pleadings can be struck out or limit evidence at trial.
AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

AFCA’S New Approach To General Insurance Claims Handling: GICOP Compliance May Not Be Enough

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority has published new guidance clarifying how insurers must handle claims, including strict timeframes and expanded compensation rules. Insurers now face potential liability beyond policy limits for unreasonable delays, and may be required to compensate claimants for non-financial losses. With storm season approaching and complaint volumes rising, these changes create significant operational and financial pressure on the insurance industry.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC Puts Motor Vehicle Premium Transparency Under The Spotlight

ASIC's Report 838 reveals significant transparency gaps in motor vehicle insurance premium communications, finding that renewal documents often fail to explain price changes adequately and that over 30% of consumers who contacted their insurer successfully negotiated lower premiums. The report establishes clear expectations for better practice in pricing disclosures and signals continued regulatory scrutiny of insurance pricing practices.
AustraliaInsurance
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Workplace Investigations And Decision Makers: What Employers Can Learn From Totino v Metro Trains

The Full Court of the Federal Court has clarified critical procedural requirements for employers managing medical incapacity terminations and defending general protections claims. This landmark decision addresses when workplace relations advisers must give evidence in proceedings and whether show cause letters constitute unlawful threats under the Fair Work Act.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

ASIC And APRA Corporate Plans 2026–27: What Regulated Entities Should Expect

APRA and ASIC have released their 2026–27 Corporate Plans, signalling more intensive supervision and enforcement, alongside targeted measures intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Their priorities span operational resilience, cyber security, artificial intelligence, consumer protection, insurance, superannuation, market integrity and digital assets. For regulated entities, the plans provide a practical roadmap of the areas most likely to attract supervisory attention, information requests and, where deficiencies are identified, enforcement action.
AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell
Article

Costs Orders Against Owners Corporations: When Maintenance Failures Meet Special Circumstances

An NCAT decision demonstrates how chronic maintenance failures by owners corporations can result in substantial costs orders, even without damages awards. The case clarifies when lot owners can be quarantined from contributing to legal costs and establishes clear responsibilities for identifying and delineating repair obligations in strata schemes.
AustraliaReal Estate and Construction
Gilchrist Connell
Gilchrist Connell