Janssen v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd (No 2)

Janssen v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 291 is a Federal Court settlement approval decision in a representative proceeding. The applicants sued on their own behalf and for a wider group in relation to conduct connected with two retail superannuation funds. The respondents were OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd, Zurich Australia Limited as replacement second respondent, and ANZ.

The judgment explains that the proceeding involved two broad categories of claims. The first category was the cash claims. These concerned the investment of members' funds with ANZ, which at the relevant time was the trustee's wholly owned parent. The second category was the commissions claims. These concerned fees deducted from members' accounts related to commissions paid to financial advisers. That distinction matters because the group members and the settlement administration process had to account for different claim types rather than one single uniform complaint.

The case had already progressed to a negotiated resolution. The parties entered into a Deed of Settlement dated 2 October 2024 and asked the Court to approve both the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. So this judgment was not the trial of the underlying allegations. It was the Court's review of whether the proposed compromise should be allowed to bind group members and how the settlement fund should be handled.

The judgment separates the proceeding into cash claims and commissions claims. For business readers, that is the easiest way to understand the structure of the dispute.

Cash claims were about how members' money was invested. The extract says these claims concerned OnePath Custodians investing members' funds with ANZ. The group included, broadly, members of the OnePath Master Fund during one period and members of the Retirement Portfolio Service Fund during a later period who invested in certain cash options. The extract also refers to some people connected with deceased members and to members with rights or units in an ANZ term deposit option.

Commissions claims were different. They concerned fees deducted from members' accounts that were related to commissions paid to financial advisers. So the focus there was not where money was invested, but what was taken from member accounts in connection with adviser commission arrangements.

This distinction matters in settlement design. Different claim categories can mean different affected cohorts, different data issues, different valuation questions and different distribution mechanics. If your business is ever involved in a group settlement, one of the first practical tasks is to define the categories clearly enough that the Court can see who is in scope and how each person's entitlement will be assessed.

The Court's central task was to decide whether to approve the settlement under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That involved more than asking whether the parties preferred settlement to continued litigation. The Court had to consider whether the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and whether the proposed settlement distribution scheme was just.

The approval application also raised a series of practical and contested issues. These included whether deductions from the settlement sum should be allowed for legal costs and disbursements, whether an uplift fee for the applicants' solicitor should be approved, whether actual and proposed administration costs should be allowed, whether ATE insurance costs should be deducted, whether some late registrants should be treated as registered, and whether suppression and non-publication orders should be made.

The case is also notable because it was conducted on a no win, no fee basis and without litigation funding. That made the treatment of solicitor remuneration, uplift and ATE insurance especially important. The Court appointed a contradictor, which shows the approval process was not treated as a formality. The contradictor's role was to assist the Court by testing the application independently, particularly where deductions from the settlement fund could reduce what group members ultimately receive.

Button J approved the settlement and the settlement distribution scheme. The orders approved settlement on the terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 2 October 2024 and approved the distribution scheme exhibited to affidavit material. The applicants were also authorised, nunc pro tunc and on behalf of group members, to enter into and give effect to the settlement deed and the transactions it contemplated.

The Court confirmed who would be bound by the orders. Under the orders, the persons affected and bound included the parties to the settlement deed and all group members who had not filed an opt out notice in accordance with earlier court orders. Slater and Gordon Lawyers was appointed as Settlement Administrator, subject to any direction of the Court.

The Court also approved specified amounts for costs and expenses. The first respondent was ordered to pay an additional $195,000 inclusive of GST toward the settlement sum to be applied to approved Settlement Administrator's Expenses, specifically Deloitte costs incurred for omitted group members registration. The Court approved a total amount of $14,271,441.94 inclusive of GST for the applicants' legal costs, disbursements, ATE insurance, uplift and contradictor costs. It approved applicants' payments of $40,000 inclusive of GST, being $20,000 to each applicant, and approved Settlement Administrator's Fees and Expenses of $3,082,880 inclusive of GST.

Importantly, the catchwords record that the settlement was approved on the basis that deduction for ATE insurance would only be allowed in part. That is one of the most commercially significant features of the decision because it shows the Court did not simply accept every proposed deduction in full.

One of the clearest lessons from the judgment is that the Court focused on what would actually come out of the settlement fund before money reached group members. In class action settlements, the headline settlement amount can attract attention, but the Court is equally concerned with the net position after approved deductions.

Here, the Court had to consider legal costs and disbursements, uplift, administration expenses and ATE insurance. ATE insurance is insurance taken out after a dispute has arisen, commonly to protect against adverse costs exposure. In this case, the catchwords describe the relevant insurance as having been incurred to indemnify the applicants' solicitor against any adverse costs order in favour of the respondents. The Court approved the settlement on the basis that the ATE insurance deduction would only be allowed in part.

A simple example shows why this matters. Imagine a settlement fund of a fixed amount. If the full insurance premium is deducted, group members receive less. If the Court allows only part of that premium to be deducted, more of the fund remains available for distribution. The exact arithmetic in this case depends on the approved figures and the operation of the distribution scheme, but the principle is clear. The Court will ask whether a proposed deduction should fairly be borne by the group and, if so, to what extent.

For businesses, this means settlement planning should not stop at agreeing a gross number. If the settlement requires court approval, the parties should be ready to explain each deduction with evidence and to show why the resulting distribution remains fair. If a deduction is unusual, large, or primarily protects a law firm or another participant rather than group members directly, expect careful scrutiny.

The approval application was not only about money. It also dealt with who would participate and what information would remain confidential.

On registration, the Court ordered that certain group members listed in a confidential annexure, who had not registered by court-ordered deadlines but later lodged a Notice of Objection seeking to register, were deemed to have registered for the purposes of settlement administration. Their claims would therefore be determined under the settlement distribution scheme. This shows that registration deadlines matter, but the Court may still make practical orders where fairness and administration require it.

The orders also dealt with omitted group members registration costs. The first respondent had to pay an additional $195,000 inclusive of GST toward the settlement sum to be applied to approved Settlement Administrator's Expenses, specifically Deloitte costs incurred for omitted group members registration. That detail is useful for businesses because it shows that settlement administration can generate substantial additional costs, especially where the affected cohort is large or difficult to identify cleanly.

On confidentiality, the Court made limited suppression and non-publication orders over material listed in confidential annexures. The orders were framed by reference to preventing prejudice to the proper administration of justice and were limited in who could access the material and, in one case, by time. This is another practical point for businesses. Confidentiality requests in settlement approval hearings are not automatic. They need to be justified and tailored.

This case is a strong reminder that settlement approval is a serious stage of a representative proceeding. Even where all settling parties support approval, the Court still has to protect the interests of group members and the integrity of the process. The appointment of a contradictor reinforces that point. A contradictor can test assumptions, challenge deductions and help the Court assess whether the proposal is genuinely fair rather than merely commercially convenient for the parties before it.

If your business is defending a class action, you should assume the Court will want a clear explanation of the claim categories, the affected cohorts, the opt out and registration history, the proposed distribution method, and the basis for every deduction from the settlement fund. If your business is in a regulated sector such as superannuation or financial services, the case also shows how disputes about investment practices, fees and commissions can become large-scale representative proceedings with complex administration issues.

There is also a records lesson here. Where claims turn on account deductions, investment options, member cohorts and historical periods, the ability to identify affected people accurately becomes central. Poor records can increase administration costs, complicate notice and registration processes, and make settlement approval harder. Businesses should therefore maintain systems that can explain what was charged, when it was charged, under what authority it was charged, and which customers or members were affected.

Although this judgment is procedural, it points to the kinds of business records that become important in group disputes and settlement approval applications. In a case involving superannuation products, account deductions and investment options, the Court process depends heavily on reliable data and clear documentary trails.

Businesses should be able to identify the relevant product or fund, the period of alleged conduct, the customers or members affected, the amounts deducted or invested, and the contractual or statutory basis for those transactions. Where commissions or adviser-related fees are involved, records should also show how those amounts were calculated and disclosed. Where money was invested in a particular option or with a related entity, records should show the relevant product settings and member exposure over time.

These issues are not only relevant to defending the merits of a claim. They also affect whether a settlement can be administered efficiently and fairly. If the data is incomplete, the cost of identifying omitted group members or processing late registrations can rise sharply. That in turn can affect the deductions sought from the settlement fund and the Court's view of whether the proposal is fair.

This page is based on the published Federal Court judgment record for Janssen v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 291, including the catchwords, orders and introductory reasons. Those materials clearly support the description of the proceeding as a settlement approval application in a representative proceeding, the identification of the two broad claim categories, the approval of the settlement and distribution scheme, the appointment of Slater and Gordon as Settlement Administrator, the approved categories of costs and expenses, the partial allowance of ATE insurance, the treatment of certain late registrants, and the making of limited confidentiality orders.

The judgment available here does not set out every detail of the underlying allegations, every subgroup within the commissions claims, or the full reasoning behind each approved amount. For that reason, this page focuses on the procedural and practical points that are clearly supported by the published judgment material.