JB HiFi extended warranties class action reaches millions of customers

_{< Go back to Class Actions Landscape Australia}

Justice Delany has dismissed the application made by JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd (JBHF) for ‘soft class closure’ orders in the class pursuant to ss 33ZF and 33ZG of the Supreme Court 1986 (Vic). 

The application was made in the context of a class action against JBHF, seeking compensation on behalf of the plaintiff and group members who purchased allegedly worthless (or near worthless) ‘extended warranties’ from JBHF over an (almost) 13-year claim period. 

The class action alleges that JBHF engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct in relation to the sale of those warranties. 

Given the length of the claim period, the plaintiff’s solicitors, Maurice Blackburn (MB), had estimated that there were likely to be approximately 8 million potential group members. 

Justice Delany refused JBHF’s application, and did not order ‘soft class closure’, for several reasons, including:

• First, JBHF did not articulate a satisfactory proposal about how ‘soft class closure’ would be communicated to group members for whom no contact information is held by JBHF. Unlike in recent comparable class actions, where defendants held contact information for 99.9%-100% of potential group members, JBHF held contact information for less than 40% of potential group members in this class action. JBHF also did not include any evidence in support of its application regarding proposed alternative methods for contacting potential group members (such via press, radio or television). Accordingly, his Honour found that, in the absence of a “clear and detailed regime” for notifying potential group members of the need to register to participate in the class action, the interests of justice would not be served by making ‘soft class closure’ orders. 
• Secondly, there was “the real prospect of duplicated costs” if ‘soft class closure’ orders were made, because the significant costs incurred in relation to ‘soft class closure’ would be followed by further similar costs if any settlement were reached. 
• Thirdly, there was “the prospect of a conflict of interest emerging between group members” if ‘soft class closure’ orders were made and there was subsequently an opportunity for group members to register following any settlement (particularly if there were to be a considerable number of subsequent registrations, which Delany had “very real concerns” there would be). As such, any “post-settlement wave of registrations” could potentially “undermine any settlement reached by reference to a single monetary sum.”
• Fourthly, his Honour was not persuaded that ‘soft class closure’ orders would enable the defendant to know their actual maximum exposure to damages. This was because such orders would only provide that information in relation to those group members who registered but not in relation to those who may register after any settlement is publicised.
• Fifthly, the making of ‘soft class closure’ orders in the absence of a satisfactory notice regime would “create a significant hurdle for group members who do not receive notice to overcome” if they ultimately sought to participate in a subsequent settlement (particularly given the “value of their individual claims is low”). Delany J found that it would not be in the interests of justice to make orders that would lead to that consequence for more than 60% of potential group members (for whom no contact information is held). 

Although not determinative, Delany J also noted:

1. that the attitude of the parties to the application was a relevant consideration (and the plaintiff opposed JBHF’s application); and
2.  the “significance of the expected costs” associated with ‘soft class closure’ (which MB had estimated would cost $500,000 per 100,000 group members).

Clarke v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 664

Supreme Court of Victoria | Delany J | 23 October 2025
Plaintiff’s Solicitors: Maurice Blackburn
Defendant’s Solicitors: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

JB Hi-Fi Group Proceeding (Class Action) | The Supreme Court of Victoria

_{< Go back to Class Actions Landscape Australia}