top of page
The Class Action against Zoetis
Pertaining to
Equivac HeV Hendra Virus Vaccine 
The Class Action against Zoetis
Pertaining to
Equivac HeV Hendra Virus Vaccine 
In Australia
In Australia
The Class Action against Zoetis
Pertaining to
Equivac HeV Hendra Virus Vaccine 

NOTICE OF FILING June 6, 2019

RACHAEL ABBOTT Applicant

ZOETIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 156 476 425 Respondent

This is the Notice of filing by LDH Lawyers against Zoetis on behalf of Rachel Abbott (+8)  pertaining to the “EQUIVAC HEV" VACCINE, It provides a clear overview of the issues many vaccinators have had with this vaccine and is recommended reading.

 SOURCE LINK: 

https://www.lhd.com.au/files/6715/6143/2336/FASOC-_sealed_5_June_2019.pdf

EXCERPT FROM ABOVE : 

A. INTRODUCTION

A.1. The Applicant and Group Members

1. This is a representative proceeding brought pursuant to Part IVA of the Federal Court of

Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCAA) on behalf of the Applicant and all persons who suffered:

(a) loss or damage; and/or

(b) personal injury,

in the period 10 August 2012 to 20 March 2018 (Relevant Period) by reason of the

conduct of Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd (Zoetis) pleaded in this Amended Statement of Claim

(collectively, Group Members).

(collectively, Group Members).

2. As at the commencement of this proceeding, seven or more Group Members have

claims against Zoetis within the meaning of s 33C of the FCAA.

 SOURCE LINK: 

https://www.lhd.com.au/files/6715/6143/2336/FASOC-_sealed_5_June_2019.pdf

Hendra Vaccine Class Action Update 

There have been recent positive developments in Federal Court class action damages claim against Zoetis Australia Pty Limited (“Zoetis”). The developments include the dismissal of Zoetis’ security for costs application and the Court granting leave for filing of further amended pleadings.

 SOURCE LINK :     DATE OF ORDER:  4 APRIL 2019  See the judgement on the above here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca0462?fbclid=IwAR2I-6Vf7nuXH9Y6N0Cj6qPpsZbB1OcPQSE_iuNuptcJqSPBbxdVhuvw64w&sfns=mo

JOIN THE CLASS ACTION- or AT LEAST MAKE AN INQUIRY

A phone call cost's little. Please phone  LHD Lawyers - Tel: 02 9264-6644 who will clarify issues for you. 

 SOURCE LINK: 

https://claims.lhd.com.au/hendra-virus-class-action/?fbclid=IwAR38FIMKgBBBIuhR3ef-36gQedW4XcUJWeonvcXJEusKefzP-hOXkfeWIbM

 

LDH lawyers -

 SOURCE LINK:  

https://www.lhd.com.au/media/blog/hendra-virus-class-action

MEDIA

RELATED LINKS :

January 18, 2019

LAST month the matter of the class action against Zoetis, the makers of the Hendra vaccine, appeared before Justice Michael Lee in the Federal Court. (See related story: Hendra Class Action)

On hearing the initial submissions Justice Lee said, “…I can tell you that the one thing that’s clear to me in this case, is that a claim can be pleaded.

Under pharmaceutical laws new trial vaccines can be administered under a special ‘minor use’ permit to be used reactively during an outbreak, however before a vaccine can be used more broadly and proactively it must first go through full clinical trials to identify side effects.

LHD Lawyers argue that this was not the case with the Hendra vaccine, that following the use during the outbreak, Zoetis then aggressively marketed the vaccine for all horses in Australia in breach of the licencing and without proper clinical trials to identify side effects

 SOURCE LINK: 

http://www.scone.com.au/hendra-vaccine-case-update/

RACHAEL Abbott is the primary applicant, along with 8 others joined in the application

The class action also makes 23 claims of misleading and deceptive conduct by Zoetis including Hendra kills more veterinarians than any other cause and there was a risk of humans contracting the disease outside the area of the outbreak.

 SOURCE LINK: 

http://www.scone.com.au/hendra-class-action/

April 5, 2018

 SOURCE LINK: 

http://www.scone.com.au/hendra-vaccine-case-update/?fbclid=IwAR3Fx6t7Fexz5Q9gNTOFYAZJxyQIhFnkqbdP1Ef7GPmqEeT4lola1zBXTYQ

 

January 18, 2019

 SOURCE LINK: 

http://www.scone.com.au/hendra-case-progress-court/

 

April 10, 2019

 SOURCE LINK: 

http://www.scone.com.au/hendra-spike-applicants/

HORSE OWNERS LAUNCH $53 MILLION CLASS ACTION AGAINST HENDRA VACCINE MAKER ZOETIS

The owners, from New South Wales and Queensland, are claiming that Zoetis Australia PTY LTD did not provide adequate warnings about the potential side effects of the vaccine on their horses.

Half a million doses have been administered to horses across Australia since 2012.

About 1,500 horses have experienced adverse reactions and have not been able to return to their regular work.

 SOURCE LINK: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-03-21/classs-action-launched-against-hendra-vaccine-makers/9572480

NO WIN NO FEE

WEBPAGE ADMINISTRATORS COMMENT:  Let me state for the record that I have absolutely no legal training or qualifications, nor do I have any ‘insider’ knowledge’ other than the ability to undertake internet research. I am expressing a personal opinion only on this matter.  I personally applaud the horse owners who have had the courage to mount a class action against Zoetis I sincerely hope they win the case; however, they will be in for a hell of a battle as Zoetis has a lot to lose if the plaintiffs win this case.

As I understand it, LDH lawyers have taken this case on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis. I sincerely hope that the class action members have been well briefed regarding what exactly this entails; this doesn’t necessarily mean there will be no related costs even if they win the case. If they lose the case, they could be liable (though I think even this is subject to what damages the judge awards, it is possible to lose but have minimal costs awarded against your side for the costs and possibly damages?) that the defendants (Zoetis) incur in the matter.

CLASS ACTIONS PRACTICE NOTE (GPN-CA)

 SOURCE LINK 

https://search2.fedcourt.gov.au/s/cache?collection=fedcourt-web&doc=https%2Fwww.fedcourt.gov.au%2Flaw-and-practice%2Fpractice-documents%2Fpractice-notes%2Fgpn-ca.pan.txt&off=0&len=-1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fedcourt.gov.au%2Flaw-and-practice%2Fpractice-documents%2Fpractice-notes%2Fgpn-ca&profile=_default&hl=(%3Fi)%5Cbuplift%5Cb%7C%5Cbfees%5Cb%7C%5Cbfee%5Cb

 

THE BATTLE BEGINS

This is simply the first skirmish, it’s not the main event

ZOETIS APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS - DISMISSED

Principles of practice and procedure

As I interpret (as a complete legal luddite) Zoetis have already shown their hand regarding the matter of their costs should they win. This move is often used as a ‘bullying tactic’ to scare off possible plaintiffs with the possibility of loosing and incurring the winner’s costs; this often results in the plaintiffs (the class action members in this instance) abandoning any further action.  As I read this judgement, this judge has disallowed this, see the last sentence of the judgement excerpt following, or follow the link to read the entire judgement.

I suspect that Zoetis’ next moves will be lengthy delaying tactics involving multiple court appearances and lots of paper-work. Obviously, this will incur more legal costs for Zoetis, more disbursement costs for the plaintiffs, with Zoetis probably hoping that this generates enough anxiety in the plaintiffs to withdraw the action. However, there are precedents for the court to recognise that over-use of these types of tactics are not warranted and to move things along. Let’s hope that fairness and justice prevail.

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DEFINITION

Interlocutory proceedings are for dealing with a specific issue in a matter – usually between the filing of the application and the giving of the final hearing and decision. An interlocutory application may be for interim relief (such as an injunction) or in relation to a procedural step (such as discovery).

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/glossary-of-legal-terms

 

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION

Judge -LEE J

Date of judgment:  4 April 2019

Catchwords:

REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS – security for costs in open unfunded class action – principled approach to such applications and the central importance of context including the nature of the litigation – relevance of the characteristics of the group members, including the likelihood of them being willing to provide security – position of group members being entitled to take a passive role in litigation prior to common issues being determined – intrusive and expensive process proposed for interrogating group members prior to any opt-out – although power exists to award security an order should not be made in the exercise of discretion notwithstanding the consideration of prejudice to the respondent

 

F    CONCLUSION & ORDERS

 

50    For the reasons I have explained, the appropriate course is to dismiss the whole of the interlocutory application.

51    I have not heard from the parties in relation to the question of costs. If an order for costs is sought, then such an application can be advanced orally at the next case management hearing when issues including finalisation of the pleading issues and orders providing for the future of the interlocutory progress of the proceeding, can be determined.

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca0462?fbclid=IwAR2I-6Vf7nuXH9Y6N0Cj6qPpsZbB1OcPQSE_iuNuptcJqSPBbxdVhuvw64w&sfns=mo

 

CLASS ACTION - NO WIN NO FEE

WHAT OTHER COSTS OR FEES MIGHT I HAVE TO PAY?

A phone call cost's little. Please phone  LHD Lawyers - Tel: 02 9264-6644 who will clarify these issues for you. 

Check with LHD Lawyers that you wont be liable for a portion of the other side’s legal costs If you lose your case, you will usually have to pay for the other side’s legal costs. Even if you may not need to pay your own lawyer, you may still be out of pocket. You should ask LHD about the costs you will need to pay if you are not successful.

Disbursements

LHDmay be entitled to ( but may have waived? Check) be reimbursed for payments which they have made to third parties connected with your matter. These payments are known as disbursements. They are not legal costs and they may be payable whether you win your case or not Disbursements include items such as photocopying expenses, medical report fees, court fees, title searches and barrister’s fees. Ask LHD  to explain the disbursements you may be expected to pay before you sign the agreement.

Uplift fees

An uplift fee (if applicable) is an amount added on top of any legal fees if you win your case. If your agreement includes an uplift fee, it must include how the uplift fees will be calculated.

 SOURCE LINK 

http://www.lsbc.vic.gov.au/documents/Fact_sheet-No_win_no_fee_costs_agreements-2015.pdf

 

 

WHAT ARE SOME DELAY TACTICS USED BY LITIGATION LAWYERS TO DRAG OUT A LAWSUIT?

What to possibly expect - behaviour of the respondent - Zoetis - Related Questions

What tactics are used by attorneys in civil litigation to overwhelm non-lawyer, pro se defendants?

What tactics do top lawyers use to win the toughest lawsuits?

What are some of dirty tactics lawyers use to win arguments in the court?

How can I avoid delaying tactics in a litigation case?

What are the most cunning manipulation tactics employed by lawyers?

What are "Lawyer scare tactics"?

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-delay-tactics-used-by-litigation-lawyers-to-drag-out-a-lawsuit

 

WHY DO LAWYERS DRAG OUT CASES?

The answer lies in the opposing goals of the plaintiff's lawyers and the defense. ... Their goal is to drag the case on and pay out as little as possible. This earns more money for the attorney, who gets paid by the hour, and also can help frustrate the plaintiff into making a better settlement for them out of desperation.

Often it is due to the tactics of defense attorneys trying to stall the case to their advantage. Why? The answer lies in the opposing goals of the plaintiff’s lawyers and the defense.

 

TACTICS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS USE TO STALL A CASE:

Send out pages of unusual and excessive demands. Demands basically ask the plaintiff to produce information. The defense is allowed to ask for anything—and then it is up to the plaintiff’s lawyers to determine if it is relevant information. They can ask for medical records dating back 15 years, authorizations for every doctor ever visited and other requests that can take days to produce.

Adjourn (put off or postpone) depositions as many times as they can

Produce piles of unnecessary paperwork that complicate the case

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.eglaw.com/blog/how-long-island-defense-attorneys-drag-your-case-on-and-on

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC75.pdf

 

JUDGES POWERS TO ‘SHUT DOWN DELAYING TACTICS’ IN LITIGATION

“We've seen judges be more proactive in fashioning orders that get cases on quickly rather than judges sitting back and letting the parties complicate matters.”

 

Under the new Supreme Court rules, discovery does not go ahead until the evidence is in, which “fundamentally changes that practice”, said Mr Johnston.

 

“And in the Federal Court you've got to demonstrate the necessity of discovery otherwise you won't get it, whereas it used to just be par for the course,” he said.

 SOURCE LINK 

https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/17821-judges-using-powers-to-shut-down-delaying-tactics-in-litigation

filing
april4
join
media
NWNF1
PRACTICEnotes
ACTION1
interlocutory
costs
TACTICS
judges
bottom of page