Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Looks Dubious – The Third Ground to Restrain a Lawyer from Acting

By John Freund |

The following piece was contributed by Valerie Blacker, commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and Amelia Atkinson, litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman.

Strata Voting Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Axios IT Pty Ltd and Anor[1] is a funded single plaintiff action. It involved a recent examination of the Court’s power to prevent a lawyer from acting in proceedings for a conflict of interest. The authors represented Strata Voting in its successful defense of the restraint application.

The Third Ground

Less frequently invoked than the first and second grounds (misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty), the third category upon which to restrain a lawyer in a position of conflict from acting in a matter is known as the “inherent jurisdiction” ground. The Court can restrain lawyers from acting in a particular case as an incident of its inherent jurisdiction over its officers and control of its processes.[2]

The jurisdiction is enlivened where there is an objective perception that a lawyer lacks independence such that the Court is compelled to interfere and remove the lawyer from acting in the matter. In other words, the position of the lawyer makes the Court uneasy.

The test for intervention is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, requires that a legal practitioner should be prevented from acting.[3]

Axios’ failed application

The jurisdiction to enjoin a solicitor from acting is to be regarded as exceptional, and to be exercised by the court with caution. That was the basis on which his Honour Judge Dart of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed the application brought to restrain Piper Alderman from acting for the liquidators.

Here, Piper Alderman is acting for the company in relation to a dispute which was in existence before the winding up commenced.  The liquidator retained Piper Alderman to continue acting for the company for the purpose of the litigation, the subject of the existing dispute.

The supposed conflict was said to have arisen from a proof of debt which Piper Alderman lodged for about $47,000 in fees incurred prior to the administration. The argument was that Piper Alderman’s impartiality was impaired by the fact that unless the litigation is successful, Piper Alderman will not be paid its outstanding fees because there will be no funds in the winding up to do so. Axios contended that “the conduct of the solicitor was so offensive to common notions of fairness and justice that they should, as officers of the Court, be restrained from acting”.

However, his Honour considered the firm’s status as creditor to be unremarkable. Even in a case where a substantial sum (over $830,000) was owed to lawyers by their insolvent client,[4] there was no risk to the proper administration of justice.

As everyone knows, solicitors routinely act in matters where they are owed money including conditional costs agreements, risk share arrangements, contingency fee arrangements and agreements that include uplift fees, to name a few.

The restraint application in Strata Voting was unsurprisingly and swiftly[5] dismissed with costs.

Conclusion

If an opposing party asserts that a lawyer should be restrained from acting for the opponent, it is necessary for a clear case to be made that the lawyer is in a position where he is fixed with an interest of such a nature that he may fail in his overriding duty to the court. It requires proof of facts, and not mere speculation as to motive.

The risk to the due administration of justice has to be a real one. Otherwise, a litigant ought not to be deprived of the lawyer of his choice.

—

About the Authors:

Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims.

Amelia Atkinson is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Amelia is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia.

For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Amelia Atkinson | T: +61 7 3220 7767 | E:  aatkinson@piperalderman.com.au

[1] Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Dart J, 23 January 2023 (Strata Voting).

[2] Kallinicos & Anor v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 118 at [76] (Kallinicos).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Naczek & Dowler [2011] FamCAFC 179, [84].

[5] In a 5-page judgment.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Australian Federal Court Approves $24.5M Funder’s Commission for Galactic 

By John Freund |

Reporting by Lawyer’s Weekly covers a major development in two Australian class actions, where litigation funder Galactic obtained a favourable ruling from the full Federal Court to double its commission from its funding of lawsuits brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank. Justices Craig Colvin, Bernard Murphy and Michael Lee, overturned a 2023 judgement by Justice O’Callaghan that refused to make Galactic’s CFO order. As a result, Galactic’s commission from the class actions will drastically rise from $12 million, to a total $24.5 million.

The Federal Court’s ruling on 2 May found that Justice O’Callaghan had been wrong to refuse making the CFO order on the basis that the court did not have the power to do so. The three Justices wrote that Galactic’s $24.5 million commission “is commercially realistic and properly reflects the costs and risks Galactic took on by funding the proceedings.”

The class actions brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank focused on allegations that the fuel and convenience store chain’s standard Franchise Agreement had ‘unfair contractual terms’ that violated consumer law. ANZ Bank were targeted by the second class action over claims that it had failed to meet its obligations under Australia’s Code of Banking Practice, ‘by lending to buy into the franchise system, often up to 100 per cent of the franchise license.’

Case Developments Commercial

London’s Black-Cab Drivers Bring £250M Claim Against Uber

By John Freund |

An article The Financial Times covers legal actions being brought against Uber on behalf of London’s black-cab drivers, centred on allegations that Uber misled Transport for London (TfL) to obtain its license. Specifically, the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Uber misled TfL around its booking model, and that the company allowed its drivers to receive direct bookings from customers rather than through a central system.

The claim is being brought in the High Court by RGL Management and is representing more than 10,500 black-cab drivers, who argue that they were harmed by unfair competition and are seeking up to £25,000 in compensation per driver. The claimants are represented by Mishcon de Reya and Katch Investment group are providing the litigation funding for the claim, with the total value of the group litigation reaching £250 million.

In a statement, Uber continued to deny the allegations and said that the claims “are completely unfounded”, maintaining its position that the ride-hailing company “operates lawfully in London, fully licensed by TfL.”

More information about the group litigation can be found on RGL Management’s ‘Black Cabs v Uber Litigation 2021’ (BULit21) website.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Read More