Qantas class action rivals set to face off in a Federal Court showdown

Rival law firms competing to lead travel credit class actions will face off in court, as Qantas argues it shouldn’t have to ‘waste time and money’ dealing with both.

Rival law firms seeking to lead class actions against Qantas over its handling of Covid-19 travel credits will argue in the Federal Court next month why the other should be knocked out of the race.

A case management hearing before Registrar Alison Legge on Tuesday heard a “full blooded multiplicity fight” was unfolding between Echo Law and Piper Alderman, both of which have lodged competing claims.

The lawsuits sought compensation for people who received travel credits from Qantas during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in the place of airfares, for flights that did not happen.

Echo Law’s claim was led by applicant Marianne Haverkort, and Piper Alderman’s was filed in the name of Margaret Nicholas.

Qantas sought to take advantage of the conflict, arguing the airline should be excused from meeting a December 15 deadline for “discovery” in the Haverkort case, setting out where relevant documents were stored, the type of documents and the costs involved in accessing them.

Barrister Ruth Higgins, for Qantas, said it would be a “waste of time and money” given there would be a “full blooded multiplicity fight” and the matter could be thrown out.

“We know that exercise might differ dramatically depending on which of these two claims prevails, and in those circumstances spending another 17 or 18 days engaged in this exercise, when we might ultimately not respond to the Haverkort claim, we submit is wasteful,” Dr Higgins said.

“On the current pleadings, the relevant periods of each of the claims are different so the class of relevant documents is ultimately going to differ as between these two proceedings.”

Dr Higgins also noted that the Haverkort claim involved flight cancellations whereas the Nicholas claim concerned “only flight credits and may not involve cancellations at all”.

“The group member population is also different between the two claims so that will affect the exercise undertaken on a document discovery,” she said.

“There is a risk that if the Haverkort claim does not prevail in a carriage fight, the entire exercise has been inutile and a waste of time and money.”

Barrister Ruth Higgins, SC, is representing Qantas.

But Registrar Legge refused the request, based on the fact there was “significant overlap” between the two cases and would be unlikely to involve “different databases or different sources of documents”.

“(The order) is to consider where relevant documents are stored which itself is really a platform for framing a discovery order,” said Registrar Legge.

“There’s no discovery that’s actually happening as an immediate consequence. I’m not going to vacate the orders that have been made.”

Qantas’ defence in the Haverkort case, revealed the airline was still holding $520m in unused travel credits down from “a Covid period high of $2bn”.

The credits no longer have a December 31 expiry date after Qantas scrapped the deadline, following pressure from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The ACCC investigated, after receiving hundreds of complaints from customers who claimed the travel credits were difficult to redeem and could only be used for more expensive fares than if they were paying in cash.

Echo Law has alleged Qantas breached its contracts with customers by failing to provide cash refunds for cancelled flights, or failing to do so in a timely manner.

Qantas’ defence denied all customers had an entitlement to a refund and said the airline had taken a number of steps to remind customers to use their Covid-19 travel credits.

The interlocutory hearing to decide who should take carriage of the class action has been set down for December 19 before Justice Bernard Murphy.