Australia: Queensland Supreme Court confirms legality of litigation funding agreements in class actions

Last Updated: 16 October 2019
Article by Chris Pagent and Josephine Allan

On 13 September 2019, the Queensland Supreme Court handed down a decision in Murphy Operator & Ors v Gladstone Ports Corporation & Anor (No 4) [2019] QSC 228 (Gladstone Ports decision).

The Court found that the litigation funding agreements in play in that case were not, by reason of the 17th century torts of maintenance (supporting litigation without an interest) or champerty (maintaining litigation for a share in profits) or public policy, unenforceable.

However, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the torts of maintenance and champerty remain torts actionable in Queensland.

The decision is important because it:

  • confirms that third party funding is lawful under Queensland's class action regime – introduced by Part 13A of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) (CPA);
  • provides comfort to litigation funders and defendants that the torts of maintenance or champerty will not affect the enforceability of litigation funding agreements; and
  • reminds litigation funders that Courts remain concerned with ensuring litigation funders do not improperly interfere with the conduct of the Court.

The class action

During 2011 and 2012, government-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) undertook dredging in Gladstone Harbour to improve shipping lanes, depositing the dredge spoil behind a bund wall.

On 21 July 2017, Murphy Operator Pty Ltd and others commenced representative proceedings against GPC in the Queensland Supreme Court on behalf of a number of fishing and processing businesses. The plaintiffs and group members allege negligence and public nuisance against GPC, claiming economic loss and damage suffered from the serious depletion of commercial seafood species from the waters affected by dredge spoil.

The class action is funded by litigation funder, Litigation Capital Management (LCM), who was joined as a respondent on the funding application.

The application

The plaintiffs applied for declarations that the litigation funding agreements with LCM were not unenforceable by reason of maintenance, champerty or public policy.

The decision

The Court found that the litigation funding agreements did not involve unlawful conduct or purpose and were not prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court declared that the agreements were not – by reason of maintenance, champerty or public policy – unenforceable.

The plaintiffs and LCM had submitted that the 17th century torts of maintenance and champerty no longer existed in the common law of Australia, and if they did, they ought to be offered 'a decent common law burial'.1 However, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide whether the torts still exist at common law, reasoning that it was not necessary to do so 'in the absence of legislation abolishing them'.2

Queensland as one of the outliers

Historically, maintenance and champerty were offences (i.e. crimes) and torts. The offences and torts were abolished in the United Kingdom following a report to the Parliament by the Law Commission in 1966,3 and by legislation in Victoria in 1969, South Australia in 1992, and New South Wales in 1995. However, in each case, the legislation preserved a statutory carve out for 'any rule of law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to public policy or as otherwise illegal'.4

In Queensland, the crimes of maintenance and champerty have not existed since the commencement of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). However, in Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania, the torts of maintenance and champerty have not been abolished and, in theory, arguably remain actionable.5

Australian approach to maintenance and champerty

The Court considered the evolution of the Australian approach to maintenance and champerty and, in particular, the High Court decision of Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd (Fostif).6

The Court relied upon the reasoning by Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ in Fostif, where their Honours considered that:

  • questions of illegality and public policy arise when considering the enforceability of a funding agreement;
  • there was no overarching rule of public policy barring the prosecution of actions funded by commercial litigation funders; and
  • the existing doctrine of abuse of process and other procedural and substantive elements of the court's processes provide protection from funders improperly interfering with the conduct of the court.

Those procedural and substantive levers include:

  • the court's power to make direct costs orders against commercial litigation funders;
  • the requirement ordinarily imposed for the payment of substantial security for costs; and
  • the ability of the defendant to seek an order for early termination of the proceedings either as an abuse of process or by way of an application for summary judgment.7

Following the reasoning in Fostif, the Court considered that the relevant question was not whether the litigation funding agreement disclosed an arrangement that constitutes champerty or maintenance, but rather 'what exactly is the corruption of the court processes that is feared' as a result of the litigation funding agreement? The Court acknowledge three possibilities noted by the Federal Court in Deloitte Touche v JP Morgan:8

  • the fear of inflammation of damages;
  • suppression of evidence; or
  • suborning witnesses.9

GPC submitted that the litigation funding agreements raised 'a fear of an inflammation of damages', on the basis that the statement of claim had been amended in a way which enlarged the area of affected waters significantly.10 But the Court was unpersuaded by that submission – no factual material was given in support of it, and GPC could be allayed by appropriate particularisation of the damages claim and the disclosure of any expert evidence on quantification of damages.11

Does having a 'commercially motivated litigation funder' distort the curial process?

With respect to public policy, GPC submitted that third party funding had a tendency to 'distort the curial process'.12 GPC argued that the failure of Queensland to enact legislation extinguishing the crimes and torts of maintenance and champerty supported their public policy assertion.13

However, the Court rejected this submission on the grounds that:

  • the crimes of maintenance and champerty had been extinguished by the Criminal Code;
  • the application did not bring a cause of action based on the torts of maintenance and champerty;
  • the legislation in other states extinguishing the torts and crimes of maintenance and champerty had preserved their effect with respect to contracts, and preserves any rule of law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to public policy or as otherwise illegal.14

What is the public policy in light of Part 13A of the CPA?

In considering what the public policy was in light of the provisions of Part 13A of the CPA, Justice Crow reasoned that:

  • section 103K(1)(e) confers a broad power on the Court to stop a class action when it is in the interests of justice to do so;15
  • section 103K(2)(b) plainly expresses the Queensland Parliament's intent that persons be identified as group members and grouped together for a particular purpose including 'a litigation funding arrangement';16
  • section 103R(2) gives the Court power to determine what proportion of a settlement sum is paid to a litigation funder which helps ensure protection of the interests of group members.17

The Court considered that the adoption of section 103K(2) in Queensland, with identical wording to section 166(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), demonstrates the Queensland Parliament's statutory adoption of the decision of the Full Federal Court in Multiplex Funds v P Dawson Nominees18 as representative of contemporary public policy – being that class action proceedings are permitted to be funded by a commercial litigation funder.19

Are the litigation funding agreements otherwise unlawful?

The Court found the terms of the litigation funding agreements to be 'sufficiently similar to the agreements in Multiplex',20 but noted that even if the terms were different, that would not be a basis in public policy, to suggest the agreements were unlawful.21

Justice Crow also rejected GPC's submission that 'control' or 'improper control' is an element of the torts of maintenance and champerty,22 but nevertheless found that the litigation funding agreements did not provide LCM with any level of unlawful or improper control.23 His Honour found that the litigation funding agreements might properly be viewed as a partial assignment of future proceeds, which was not against public policy, but rather permitted in class actions by the operation of Part 13A.24

GPC's central submission was that Fostif provides no guidance in Queensland, absent legislation abolishing the torts of maintenance and champerty.25 GPC relied on paragraph 85 of Fostif which provides:

"In jurisdictions where legislation has been enacted to the same effect as the Abolition Act, the premise for the second proposition identified [that for the maintainer to institute and continue proceedings, in the name of or on behalf of plaintiffs who were thus maintained, was an abuse of process which could be avoided only by ordering a stay of the proceedings] is not valid; there are several reasons to reject it. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to decide what would be the position in those jurisdictions where maintenance and champerty may remain as torts, perhaps even crimes."26

The Court rejected GPC's position that as a 'non-abolition State', the reasoning of Fostif does not apply. However, while acknowledging Queensland does not have an 'Abolition Act', Justice Crow ultimately relied on the existence of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) and Part 13A of the CPA (Qld) to support his finding that 'the funding agreement cannot be found to be unlawful'. 27 His Honour held that:

"s 103K(2)(b) of the Civil Proceedings Act does not impliedly, and for all purposes, abolish the torts of maintenance and champerty but I do take the view that s 103K(2)(b) together with the balance of Part 13A, authorises commercial litigation funding agreements in respect of "class actions" in Queensland."28

His Honour hypothesised that as the crimes of maintenance and champerty do not exist in Queensland, the logical conclusion is that the torts also no longer exist, as an essential element of the torts coming into existence is the commission of the crime and the suffering of special damage.29 However, for the reasons already stated, the Court did not consider it necessary to rule on whether the torts still existed at common law.

Accordingly, whether the 17th century torts of maintenance and champerty will be consigned to the 'museum of legal history' remains uncertain for the moment, but it clear that litigation funding agreements are not illegal per se in Queensland. To the contrary, they accord with the public policy of the class actions regime.

Footnotes

1 Murphy Operator & Ors v Gladstone Ports Corporation & Anor (No 4) [2019] QSC 228 (Gladstone Ports decision) at [72].

2 Ibid at [131] and [149].

3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (UK) s 14; Report entitled 'Proposals for Reform of the Law Relating to Maintenance and Champerty'.

4 Gladstone Ports Decision at [113], [133]; see Magic Menu Systems Pty Ltd & Anor v AFA Facilitation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 261.

5 Gladstone Ports Decision at [119], citing J C Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd [1984] 2 Qd R 413 regarding the position in Queensland.

6 (2006) 229 CLR 386.

7 Gladstone Ports Decision at [136] to [137].

8 (2007) 158 FCR 417.

9 Ibid at [39] cited at Gladstone Ports Decision at [144].

10 Gladstone Ports Decision at [145].

11 Ibid at [145].

12 Ibid at [146].

13 Ibid at [150].

14 Ibid at [150].

15 Ibid at [156].

16 Ibid at [156].

17 Ibid at [159].

18 (2007) 164 FCR 275.

19 Gladstone Ports Decision at [171] to [172].

20 Ibid at [175].

21 Ibid at [175].

22 Ibid at [175].

23 Ibid at [176].

24 Ibid at [177].

25 Ibid at [178].

26 Note, second proposition in brackets added from Fostif at [84], cited in Gladstone Ports Decision at [178].

27 Gladstone Ports Decision at [183].

28 Ibid at [183].

29 Neville v London 'Express' Newspaper Limited [1919] AC 368; Fostif at [77]; cited in Gladstone Ports Decision at [181].

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.

Chambers Asia Pacific Awards 2016 Winner – Australia
Client Service Award
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

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

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

Authors
 
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”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions