Businesses hit by one of the world’s longest Covid-19 lockdowns will receive $125 million from taxpayers after a state government agreed to resolve the matter.
A class action lawsuit has been brought to the supreme court on behalf of businesses financially affected by Victoria’s 2020 lockdowns.
Retail businesses, including lead plaintiff 5 Boroughs NY Pty Ltd, argued that the state government should pay them for economic losses resulting from the closure, as customers were prevented from attending their physical businesses, due to restrictions between July and October.
The matter had been listed for trial on March 10; however, it was adjourned until a directions hearing in Melbourne Supreme Court on Monday.
Barrister Adam Hochroth SC, representing the class action, said the trial had been set aside because he was “pleased” to inform the court that the parties had reached a settlement.
“The terms of the settlement agreements are confidential at this stage, but I can tell your Honor that the settlement amount is $125 million, including everything, costs and interest,” he told the court on Monday.
The agreement must be formally approved by the court before funds can be distributed.
The Victorian government confirmed the agreement in court on Monday and said it continues to respect “the measures it took during the pandemic to keep Victorians safe.”
“The State has reached an agreement to resolve the matter,” a spokesperson said.
“The $125 million settlement, agreed between the parties, will avoid protracted legal proceedings.”
The class-action law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, said the settlement ended “years of hard-fought litigation” by the affected companies.
“This is a significant result for eligible businesses. July to October 2020 was an extraordinarily difficult period for Victorian retail businesses,” partner Damian Scattini said in a statement.
“The $125 million settlement we have reached on their behalf is an acknowledgment of this difficulty and I hope it provides some relief to eligible businesses.”
The request for approval of the agreement was postponed until a date to be determined.
