Chief Justice James Allsop has a lot to say about class action reform in Australia. He asserts that class actions have an inherent public benefit—one that’s in constant danger of being minimized or even forgotten. This came within days of AG Michaelia Cash revealing that the government would not continue its quest for litigation funding reforms. This includes the proposed 30% cap on payouts to third-party funders.
An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe
Chief Justice James Allsop has a lot to say about class action reform in Australia. He asserts that class actions have an inherent public benefit—one that’s in constant danger of being minimized or even forgotten. This came within days of AG Michaelia Cash revealing that the government would not continue its quest for litigation funding reforms. This includes the proposed 30% cap on payouts to third-party funders.
Financial Review details Chief Justice Allsop’s statement that Parliament and other interested parties put aside personal prejudices and preconceived notions about the industry when deciding how to move forward. It’s essential, he said, that people keep in mind that class actions are vital to the public good.
Some have suggested that a 30% cost and funding cap would reduce the number of spurious or low value class actions being launched. But is that happening? Evidence suggests that it isn’t. Logic suggests that no funder wants to bankroll a case without merit.
Legal author Jason Betts suggests that giving claimants 70% of an award seems more fair. But is it? Especially given that funders take on 100% of the financial risk? Would this change even make a difference, or would cases simply be filed in Victorian Supreme Court instead?
It’s been suggested that judges be given leeway to make or approve decisions regarding the division of award funds, because they’re able to look at each case individually rather than relying on broad mandates. We’ll have to wait and see how the Aussie regulatory system shakes out.
