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 following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker, a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and John Speer, a lawyer in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation Team at Piper Alderman.
While large class actions receive the lion’s share of media attention, litigation financiers also regularly fund litigation involving a single plaintiff. Given that solicitors are required to maintain professional indemnity insurance, they can be, in instances of negligence, an attractive prospect for financiers: they are well-resourced and have the capacity to satisfy any judgment awarded against them.
The following piece was contributed by Anne Freeman of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman.
Virgin Australia, which has been sued by investors who purchased unsecured notes in the airline based on statements in a 2019 prospectus for a capital raising, has been ordered to advise the lead applicant in the class action whether its has made a claim against its insurer for its costs and any liability in the class action, and whether its insurer has agreed to grant indemnity. It has also been ordered to produce copies of any insurance policies which might respond to the claims made in the class action[i].
The following piece was contributed by Lillian Rizio and Max Hensen of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman.
The Full Federal Courts’ decision in Parkin v Boral Limited (Class Closure) [2022] FCAFC 47 (Parkin) confirms the courts’ power to issue pre-mediation (and settlement) soft class closure notices to group members. The decision hints at the (positive) appetite of the Federal Court in making future orders for class closure that facilitate a just outcome,[1] simplifies the assessment of quantum prior to settlement, and reduces an element of risk in funded litigation.
The following piece was contributed by Martin del Gallego and Matthew Harris of Australian law firm, Piper Alderman.
This article considers a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia, awarding damages to class action claimants on an aggregate basis. Aggregate damages is a rare global award which covers all group members described or identified in the award. This was the first instance of aggregate damages being awarded to a funded litigant in Australia, and may spur a trend in representative claims brought on this basis.
The High Court has ruled in favour of shareholders in Walton & Anor v ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) & Ors. In a 3:2 decision, the majority permitted former shareholders of Arrium Ltd to examine the insolvent company’s officers under s 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (‘CA’) for the purpose of potentially bringing a class action against the company’s managers.
The following article was contributed by Nikki Stever and Madison Smith of Australia-based commercial law firm, Piper Alderman.
In the third decision delivered in a shareholder class action in Australia,[1] Iluka Resources Limited (ASX: ILU), (Iluka) succeeded in its defence of a lawsuit[2] which failed to prove that the shareholders’ direct reliance on Iluka’s conduct caused their losses. However, the decision in favour of Iluka notably lacked any significant consideration of the second causation argument typically pleaded in shareholder class actions – market-based causation.
The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker and Jon Na, of Piper Alderman.
Applicants often confront the proposition, which respondents typically use in their defense, that terms in consumer contracts will effectively exclude or restrict the claims that have been brought. The High Court of Australia recently weighed in on this issue, deciding that a mortgage contained an enforceable promise by the borrowers not to raise a statutory limitation defense in relation to a claim by the lenders, which was commenced out of time.
