Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 DECEMBER 2019

Vale Common Fund Orders: What Does It Mean For Insolvency Practitioners?

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Impact of recent landmark HC decision (that Courts are not empowered to make common fund orders) on insolvency practitioners.

AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

This week's edition of TGIF considers the landmark decision of the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall [2019] HCA 45 and what it might mean for insolvency practitioners.

Decision

On 4 December 2019, a majority of the High Court held that Courts are not empowered to make common fund orders. Common fund orders arose in the context of class actions funded by a third party litigation funder. They provided for all group members to pay to the funder a set proportion of any damages the group members may recover, irrespective of whether the group members had signed a litigation funding agreement.

One possible implication of the High Court's decision will be that, for smaller litigation funders, there will be new barriers to funding class actions. That might, in turn, increase the appetite to fund insolvency litigation. We explain that reasoning below.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

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.

    Lawyers Weekly Law firm of the year 2021                  
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

See more popular content from