Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The wheels are slowly moving on the Ruby Princess Case.  Below is an order made last Thursday in the Federal Court.  I am not a legal person but that seems like big bickies to me to put down up front.

 

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: New South Wales
Division: General
No: NSD806/2020
SUSAN KARPIK
Applicant
CARNIVAL PLC ARBN 107 998 443 and another named in the schedule
Respondent
ORDER
JUDGE:
JUSTICE LEE and JUSTICE STEWART
DATE OF ORDER:
20 January 2021
WHERE MADE:
Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant is to provide security for the costs of the respondents with the following amounts to be provided at the following times:
a. $1,000,000, provided within 30 days of the date of these orders;
b. $1,000,000, provided by 15 April 2021;
c. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the date of service of the respondents’ expert evidence; and
d. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the first day of trial.
2. The security for the costs of the respondents contemplated by Order 1 is to be provided to the respondents by way of four separate deeds of indemnity executed by AmTrust Europe Limited and the respondents, in the form agreed between the applicant and the respondents and as sent by the applicant’s solicitors to the respondents’ solicitors on 26 November 2020 (together, the Deeds of Indemnity).
3. The applicant deposit the sum of $30,000 into Court within 30 days of the date of these orders to be retained as further security in relation to the respondents' costs of enforcing the Deeds of Indemnity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ondine said:

The wheels are slowly moving on the Ruby Princess Case.  Below is an order made last Thursday in the Federal Court.  I am not a legal person but that seems like big bickies to me to put down up front.

 

Federal Court of Australia
District Registry: New South Wales
Division: General
No: NSD806/2020
SUSAN KARPIK
Applicant
CARNIVAL PLC ARBN 107 998 443 and another named in the schedule
Respondent
ORDER
JUDGE:
JUSTICE LEE and JUSTICE STEWART
DATE OF ORDER:
20 January 2021
WHERE MADE:
Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant is to provide security for the costs of the respondents with the following amounts to be provided at the following times:
a. $1,000,000, provided within 30 days of the date of these orders;
b. $1,000,000, provided by 15 April 2021;
c. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the date of service of the respondents’ expert evidence; and
d. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the first day of trial.
2. The security for the costs of the respondents contemplated by Order 1 is to be provided to the respondents by way of four separate deeds of indemnity executed by AmTrust Europe Limited and the respondents, in the form agreed between the applicant and the respondents and as sent by the applicant’s solicitors to the respondents’ solicitors on 26 November 2020 (together, the Deeds of Indemnity).
3. The applicant deposit the sum of $30,000 into Court within 30 days of the date of these orders to be retained as further security in relation to the respondents' costs of enforcing the Deeds of Indemnity.

I know the family involved, well the husband, Henry, one of my former bosses, he nearly died. I dont fully understand the above, so who puts up the money, carnival or Karpiks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NSWP said:

I know the family involved, well the husband, Henry, one of my former bosses, he nearly died. I dont fully understand the above, so who puts up the money, carnival or Karpiks?

Both would have to put up money or surety. The applicants (Karpik) have to put up the following:

1. The applicant is to provide security for the costs of the respondents with the following amounts to be provided at the following times:
a. $1,000,000, provided within 30 days of the date of these orders;
b. $1,000,000, provided by 15 April 2021;
c. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the date of service of the respondents’ expert evidence; and
d. $1,000,000, provided 30 days prior to the first day of trial.

3. The applicant deposit the sum of $30,000 into Court within 30 days of the date of these orders to be retained as further security in relation to the respondents' costs of enforcing the Deeds of Indemnity.

 

The respondent (Carnival PLC) have to put up Deeds of Indemnity backed by an insurance company.

 

The only way I could see the applicant having that sort of money (or the ability to have that level of surety), would be if there is significant funding coming from litigation investors.

Edited by Aus Traveller
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I fail to see what will come out of this for the family apart from more heartache. I thought Carnival was cleared and the NSW health were at fault.

I agree. That might be why the Federal Court ordered that the applicants put up such a large amount as security against the respondent's costs. The only people who can win out of this are the lawyers and litigation funders (if they are involved).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dillpickle48 said:

Henry and Sue were our friends and neighbours in Broken Hill in the early 70's.  Henry was a young detective back in those days.

He retired around 2005 as Supt at Sutherland, where i was. Hard man but solid boss.

Edited by NSWP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

I fail to see what will come out of this for the family apart from more heartache. I thought Carnival was cleared and the NSW health were at fault.

Agreed. Actually with the experiences and knowledge gained from other outbreaks which puts the Ruby Princess debacle more into perspective I'm a little surprised there is still going to be a court case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

I fail to see what will come out of this for the family apart from more heartache. I thought Carnival was cleared and the NSW health were at fault.

Big gamble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

I agree. That might be why the Federal Court ordered that the applicants put up such a large amount as security against the respondent's costs. The only people who can win out of this are the lawyers and litigation funders (if they are involved).

Could be settled out of court by Carnival paying out. I wonder who the second respndent is?

Edited by NSWP
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

I fail to see what will come out of this for the family apart from more heartache. I thought Carnival was cleared and the NSW health were at fault.


My guess is that they are taking the action against Princess for letting them on the ship in the first place. Negligence, duty of care etc.

 

Make an argument that Princess already knew of Covid, there were official warnings about, and the Royal Princess issues in Japan had already happened.


Does anyone know if this is a class action, with these people named as the applicants?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Docker123 said:


My guess is that they are taking the action against Princess for letting them on the ship in the first place. Negligence, duty of care etc.

 

Make an argument that Princess already knew of Covid, there were official warnings about, and the Royal Princess issues in Japan had already happened.


Does anyone know if this is a class action, with these people named as the applicants?

 

There is a class action going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

What ever happened to the Police conducting a homicide investigation into Ruby Princess? In April, Gladys Berejiklian said the police investigation would take six months. Looks like it ended up in file 13.🤔

 

 

Or the one way fax, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, By The Bay said:

What ever happened to the Police conducting a homicide investigation into Ruby Princess? In April, Gladys Berejiklian said the police investigation would take six months. Looks like it ended up in file 13.🤔

 

Maybe the homicide investigation ended up in the filing cabinet labelled 'WPB'.😁  A pity about all the police time spent on the investigation when it was obvious it could not be classified as a 'homicide'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Could be settled out of court by Carnival paying out. I wonder who the second respndent is?

The second respondent is Princess Cruise Lines Limited. The case is shown as being for 'Misleading or Deceptive Conduct'.

 

Carnival could settle out of court to avoid negative publicity. However, for Mrs Susan Karpik, there is still the hurdle of the amount she has been ordered to put up or guarantee if she wants the case to continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Maybe the homicide investigation ended up in the filing cabinet labelled 'WPB'.😁  A pity about all the police time spent on the investigation when it was obvious it could not be classified as a 'homicide'.

Probably still going on. Could be manslaughter charges, who knows, who cares, I dont.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aus Traveller said:

The second respondent is Princess Cruise Lines Limited. The case is shown as being for 'Misleading or Deceptive Conduct'.

 

Carnival could settle out of court to avoid negative publicity. However, for Mrs Susan Karpik, there is still the hurdle of the amount she has been ordered to put up or guarantee if she wants the case to continue.

Easy way to possibly lose all your superannuation and your house and more, if it goes against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Maybe the homicide investigation ended up in the filing cabinet labelled 'WPB'.😁  A pity about all the police time spent on the investigation when it was obvious it could not be classified as a 'homicide'.

 

15 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Maybe the homicide investigation ended up in the filing cabinet labelled 'WPB'.😁  A pity about all the police time spent on the investigation when it was obvious it could not be classified as a 'homicide'.

In the Nswp it is the one way fax, aka the shredder, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NSWP said:

Probably still going on. Could be manslaughter charges, who knows, who cares, I dont.

If the deaths that occurred following the infections on the Ruby Princess can be classified as 'manslaughter', then surely the deaths in the nursing homes in Victoria and other clusters, would also be cases of manslaughter. There would be a stronger case in the latter instances, because the pandemic was in full swing by then. I cannot see how any of these deaths, sad as they are, can be classified as either homicides or cases of manslaughter.

 

This action is shown as a class action with Susan Karpik as the lead applicant. I feel it is obvious that litigation funders are involved. ☹️ As other people involved in class action lawsuits have found in the last couple of years, they end up with very little and the litigation funders get rich.

Edited by Aus Traveller
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

If the deaths that occurred following the infections on the Ruby Princess can be classified as 'manslaughter', then surely the deaths in the nursing homes in Victoria and other clusters, would also be cases of manslaughter. There would be a stronger case in the latter instances, because the pandemic was in full swing by then. I cannot see how any of these deaths, sad as they are, can be classified as either homicides or cases of manslaughter.

 

This action is shown as a class action with Susan Karpik as the lead applicant. I feel it is obvious that litigation funders are involved. ☹️ As other people involved in class action lawsuits have found in the last couple of years, they end up with very little and the litigation funders get rich.

I mentioned many months ago, I have a couple of Probus Club friends here who were on Ruby and tested positive a few days after disembarkation. They told me a while ago they were part of the class action with Shine Lawyers, probably this one.

 

The legal eagles will make some money, not sure about anyone else.

Edited by NSWP
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it, Susan Karpick represents all those who have filed with the class action Shine suit against Carnival Cruise.  . All except Americans and perhaps those from the UK.  Any action against anyone else (example the NSW Health), has been dropped by the Shine Lawyers.  

An insurance company is putting up the needed money and not any claimers in the law suit. It is being "advertised" as no money loss to anyone who joins.   So the lawyers get their part and the insurance company get their percent for putting up the cash.  Left is $1.25 lol  to be split with hundreds.

This info is a few months old so not sure anything has changed.

Edited by BRANDEE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with RiverCruising, the River Cruise Experts
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...