Posted by Marcus McCarthy | 09 December 2019 | Finance Transaction Support
Litigation funding (also known as legal financing or third-party litigation funding) has been a major driver of Australian class actions. It typically involves a funder advancing the costs or fees associated with litigation into a “common fund”. In exchange, the funder receives a cut of any proceeds recovered from a settlement or a court judgment.
Common fund orders require all members of a class action to contribute a percentage of any settlement or damages they receive to the litigation funder. This applies even if they have not personally signed any contract with the funder.
Challenges to common fund orders mounted in the Federal Court and Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
On Wednesday, the High Court of Australia determined that the Federal Court of Australia and the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales do NOT have the power to make common fund orders in class actions.
Central to the case was whether section 33ZF of the Federal Court Act and section 183 of the Civil Procedure Act (NSW) empower the court, in representative proceedings, to make a common fund order. The court, by a 5:2 majority, said that the sections do not.
In the lead judgment, Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, Justice Virginia Bell and Justice Patrick Keane ruled that while both sections empower the courts to make any appropriate or necessary order “to ensure that justice is done,” the power does not extend to making common fund orders.
“These sections empower the making of orders as to how an action should proceed in order to do justice. They are not concerned with the radically different question as to whether an action can proceed at all,” the Justices said.
“It is not appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in a representative proceeding for a court to promote the prosecution of the proceeding in order to enable it to be heard and determined by that court. The making of an order at the outset of a representative proceeding, in order to assure a potential funder of the litigation of a sufficient level of return upon its investment to secure its support for the proceeding, is beyond the purpose of the legislation.”
The lead judgment of Chief Justice Susan Kiefel and Justices Virginia Bell and Patrick Keane also said that when section 33ZF was enacted, “the Parliament could not have been understood to contemplate that [it] might be invoked to support a [common fund order] “.
What are the key points to take from the decision?
This publication is © Nexus Law Group and is for general guidance only. Seek legal advice before taking action in relation to any specific issues.
In the June 2021 edition of Acuity, Nexus Law Group legal technologist and Group Principal Jeremy Duffy explains the difference between e- and digital signatures, "As the use of e-signatures increases exponentially, chartered accountants and their clients need to understand the difference between the two and the legal responsibilities implied with each."
If you are a trustee or beneficiary of a discretionary trust that owns property in NSW, your trust deed may require amendments that exclude ‘foreign persons’ as beneficiaries by 31 December 2020 to avoid additional surcharges.