Category Archives: Litigation funding

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42 | 30 August 2006

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42; (2006) 229 ALR 51 (30 August 2006)

The High Court ruled that one petrol retailer could not commence  proceedings to recover invalid petroleum licensing fees on the basis that other retailers would join the proceedings later.

For the same reasons as those expressed in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006), the High Court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41 | 30 August 2006

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006).

The High Court ruled that representative proceedings brought in the Supreme Court of NSW by seven retailers to recover tobacco licence fees from Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd and other tobacco wholesalers were not in accordance with the Court Rules.

The court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Nemeth v Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 198

ON 24 JUNE 2014, the NSW Court of Appeal delivered Nemeth v Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 198 (24 June 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2014/198.html

A woman was unsuccessful in her appeal against a Supreme Court decision in which the court did not allow her to be relieved of her obligations under an agreement in which she was obliged to pay Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd a 25% commission the $9 million final settlement of her Family Court proceedings.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Litigation funding advisory panel

THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY-GENERAL is to convene an advisory panel to look into the litigation funding industry.

Litigation funding advisory panel

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/crackdown-on-opportunistic-class-actions/story-e6frg97x-1226927445137#mm-premium

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Trendlen Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 42; (2006) 229 ALR 51 (30 August 2006)

The High Court ruled that one petrol retailer could not commence  proceedings to recover invalid petroleum licensing fees on the basis that other retailers would join the proceedings later.

For the same reasons as those expressed in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006), the High Court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41

ON 30 AUGUST 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Limited [2006] HCA 41; (2006) 229 ALR 58; (2006) 80 ALJR 1441 (30 August 2006).

The High Court ruled that representative proceedings brought in the Supreme Court of NSW by seven retailers to recover tobacco licence fees from Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd and other tobacco wholesalers were not in accordance with the Court Rules.

The court held that an agreement with a non-party to fund the costs of a party’s legal proceedings in return for reward (ie litigation funding) was not in itself an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088