Australia: Liquidators And Funded Litigation - Is Court Approval Necessary?

Last Updated: 30 June 2008
Article by Damien McAloon

Key Point

  • Considering that creditors usually have assessed the merits of litigation funding, and the cost of going to court, making court approval a mandatory step does not appear justified.

Should all litigation funding agreements involving liquidators be screened by courts?

That was the proposal put forward by Justice Palmer in his now-famous attack on litigation funding in Hall v Poolman [2007] NSWSC 1330. However, an analysis of the current state of litigation funding and its brief history in Australia calls into question the practicality of his suggestion.


In Campbell's Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) 80 ALJR 1441, the High Court held that litigation funding is a reality of commercial life and that courts would look favourably on litigation funding arrangements that offered access to justice, provided that any tendency to abuse of process is controlled.

Notwithstanding this, Hall v Poolman shows that the litigation funding story "on the ground" may not be as clear cut as might be hoped.

Litigation funding agreements usually provide the litigation funder with a significant "success fee". On occasions, this success fee and the costs of litigation combine with the liquidator's bill to swallow most of the payout from successful litigation.

Such an outcome faced Justice Palmer in Hall v Poolman.

The collapsed Reynolds group of companies could not pay unsecured creditors or even the costs of the winding up. The only potential assets were voidable preference claims against the Australian Tax Office and insolvent trading claims against former directors. Having no funds to pursue these claims, the liquidators entered into a funding agreement with a litigation funder.

The amounts sought to be recovered totalled approximately $9.6 million (compared with unpaid creditors' claims of more than $130 million). When the trial began, the Court was informed that most of the $9.6 million would be eaten up by:

  • the litigation funder's costs and "success fee"; and
  • the costs of the liquidators and their solicitors.

The litigation against the directors and the ATO was largely successful. Nevertheless, by the conclusion of the trial, it was estimated that creditors would receive between $0.004 and $0.0285 in the dollar. Justice Palmer was clearly disturbed by this outcome. He suggested that the "true beneficiaries of this huge piece of litigation are the litigation funder, the liquidators and their lawyers, not the creditors". He said that the facts of the case demonstrated how:

"...a mammoth piece of litigation can be instigated, perhaps to the ruin of the defendant, with negligible `access to justice' for those who have suffered a wrong but with lucrative reward for those who make a business of investing in law suits."

Accordingly, although allowing the liquidators' claims, he ordered an inquiry into their conduct (under section 536(1)(a)) that would address the liquidators':

  • entering into a funding agreement and commencing proceedings when they were "aware that there was a substantial risk that the creditors would receive no, or very little dividend";
  • permitting costs to amount to approximately $2 million; and
  • failing to obtain directions of the Court before proceeding.

This last point is particularly interesting.

Is obtaining court approval of each funding agreement a practical measure for liquidators?

According to Justice Palmer, a liquidator, before entering into a funding agreement, should ask the court for directions under section 511(1)(a). This provision, along with section 479(3) (for compulsory liquidations), allows liquidators to obtain guidance from the Court and thereby secure a "degree of protection against subsequent claims of a breach of duty".

Justice Palmer suggested that applications by liquidators for directions as to whether funded litigation should be commenced are "frequent"; however, this is not borne out by a consideration of the existing authorities.

In particular, it appears that. liquidators nowadays tend to apply to the court for approval of litigation funding agreements to ensure compliance with the section 477(2B) requirement that long-term (>three months) agreements be approved by creditors or by the court. Most, if not all, litigation funding agreements will be for more than three months. As a consequence, liquidators will need to have such agreements approved in accordance with section 477(2B) of the Act.

Importantly, such approval can be obtained from the court, the creditors or the committee of inspection. As considered in more detail below, there are a number of reasons for a liquidator's seeking the necessary approval from creditors or from the committee of inspection (rather than via an application to court). Indeed, a number of applications for court approval have followed an unsuccessful attempt to obtain creditor approval.

In short, the authorities suggest that previous applications to court by liquidators for approval of litigation funding agreements generally fall into two categories:

  • applications made in the mid to late 1990s when the scope of the insolvency exception to champerty and maintenance was still actively being judicially considered; or
  • applications to obtain approval under section 477(2B), often in circumstances where approval by creditors was initially sought by the liquidator but was not obtained.

(It is instructive that in Leigh re King Bros [2006] NSWSC 315, an application under both sections 477 and 479, the Court was prepared to give approval under section 477 but declined to give a direction under section 479, on the grounds that the section 477 order would make it otiose.)

Notwithstanding the use of section 477, Justice Palmer concluded that liquidators intent on entering a litigation funding agreement should seek and obtain court approval on each occasion, for two main reasons:

  • "the application enables the Court to control, so far as it can, the use of litigation funding so that it does not destroy the very system of justice upon which it feeds";
  • "In such applications ASIC may be given notice so that it may make its own submissions."

On the ASIC point, he said that the Court did not know whether ASIC might have regarded the alleged insolvent trading as warranting prosecution for a civil penalty order. Conversely, if ASIC thought that the alleged contraventions were not so serious as to warrant prosecution, then the liquidators would not be justified in commencing proceedings.

Justice Palmer's observations may leave liquidators thinking that a failure to obtain court approval will leave them open to criticism. However, a number of considerations tell against a strict requirement that liquidators must seek court approval in every instance of proposed litigation funding.


Justice Palmer had the advantage of knowing the legal costs that had been incurred in pursuing the matter to trial. This information is not available to liquidators when they are determining whether or not it is in the interests of the creditors to commence funded litigation. As a matter of commercial reality, costs estimates are routinely exceeded, not least because it is difficult to predict with certainty how long the litigation process will take.

Justice Palmer was apparently concerned by the extent, duration and cost of the litigation, particularly when the potential return to creditors was minimal. It is not clear however whether the extent of costs incurred in the proceeding to that point could have reasonably been anticipated before the proceeding. Approaching the court before entry into the funding agreement, therefore, may not necessarily have averted the situation in which the liquidators found themselves.

Is nothing better than anything?

As noted above, Justice Palmer found that the relevant companies had no potential assets, other than the preference and insolvent trading claims. In those circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that the committee of inspection approved the liquidators' entry into the litigation funding agreements.

On the most optimistic scenario, the largest creditor would receive $545,992 (on a debt of $19 million) and a creditor owed $100,000 would receive just over $2,800. Although comparatively small, this is a better return than creditors would have received if the litigation had not been commenced at all, especially since they would not face any litigation costs. If prior court approval of the funding agreement had been sought, would the court have denied creditors an opportunity to recover even such a small amount in respect of their claims against a company in liquidation?

The approach of Justice Fryberg in Re Imobridge Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No. 2) [2000] 2 Qd R 280 is instructive. A liquidator had indicated that one reason for seeking leave to enter a funding agreement was that the litigation would, if successful, pay for the liquidator's fees. Despite this, Justice Fryberg approved entry into the funding agreement. In doing so, he appeared to believe that even a small benefit for creditors was better than nothing:

"...the fact that the most likely outcome of the litigation will benefit only the professionals involved in the winding up is not necessarily a reason to stifle the litigation. If costs had been properly incurred in the winding up and a preference is available to be recovered, it is not unreasonable that proceedings should be brought to recover it and so fund those costs. That there is also some chance of benefit for the unsecured creditors without any detriment to them to some degree reinforces the case for bringing the proceedings."

This approach was equally evident in Carob Industries v Simto [1999] WASC 258:

"although it is very obvious that the members and creditors will not be any better off if the agreement is approved, I cannot see that they can be any worse off".

The Court in Carob also took the view that such a litigation funding arrangement was commercially moral:

"it is in the company's interests and also in the interests of the community that the liquidator should be paid his proper fees and the winding-up concluded in an orderly manner".

This approach is arguably at odds with Justice Palmer's view that a liquidator should not proceed with a funding arrangement that offers "no more than a token benefit to the creditors."

A commercial decision like any other

Entry into a litigation funding agreement is ultimately a commercial decision to be assessed like any other commercial decision.

In cases approving entry into a litigation funding agreement, Courts have given the liquidator "considerable latitude in exercising commercial judgment." ((2000) 42 ACSR 296, at 300). In Anstella Nominees Pty Ltd v. St George Motor Finance Ltd (2003) 21 ACLC 1347, Justice Finkelstein noted that a liquidator will usually be "in a far better position than a judge" to evaluate whether the terms of a proposed litigation funding agreement are acceptable. This appears particularly true in an environment where there are a number of providers competing to offer litigation funding.

To some extent, also, the litigation funding market enables liquidators to "outsource" the analysis of the prospects of potential claims. As Justice Austin noted in ACN 076 673 875 Ltd: (2000) 42 ACSR 296

"...there is the commercial reality that IMF [the litigation funder in that case] would not, acting rationally, prosecute litigation at its expense unless there were a reasonable prospect of a verdict or settlement..."

It is notable that, despite expressing some concerns, courts have tended to approve funding agreements. This suggests that the prospect of a court not approving a litigation funding agreement (particularly where it already has creditor approval) is somewhat remote. Courts have also acknowledged that creditors are "better judges than Courts of their own commercial interests." (Re Imobridge Pty Ltd (in Liq). (No. 2) [2000] 2 Qd R 280, at 297).

Given those facts – and the additional legal costs – is there much point in requiring court approval for a litigation funding agreement that has already been approved by creditors (assuming, of course, that there has been full disclosure)?


There is no statutory requirement that every funding agreement be approved in advance by the court. Nor does this occur in practice. Liquidators will generally seek, and be satisfied with, creditor approval (whether via resolution at a meeting of creditors or from the committee of inspection).

The Reynolds Group Case highlighted the extent to which funding agreements can sometimes result in creditors' receiving proportionally less than the liquidator or litigation funder. Against that backdrop Justice Palmer advocated that liquidators always obtain Court approval of litigation funding, a step that liquidators may now see as providing additional protection against subsequent claims of breach of duty.

On the other hand, there are compelling policy reasons against seeking court approval for every litigation funding agreement. As courts have acknowledged, liquidators and creditors are in the best position to assess the merits of a proposed litigation funding agreement and to determine whether it is in creditors' interests. In the vast majority of cases, it will be sufficient that the creditors have made that assessment. Having their judgment "second guessed" by a court will rarely yield a different outcome. On that basis and having regard to the attendant cost for creditors and burden on court resources, making court approval a mandatory step does not appear justified.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.