Editor

If contingency fees are really so bad that they should be opposed as a matter of principle, why did each of the Productivity Commission, the Victorian Law Reform Commission, and the Australian Law Reform Commission recommend their introduction? The answer is that on close analysis, the arguments against contingency fees do not bear scrutiny, says NSW barrister Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz.

In observance of the holidays, Lawyerly will be closed from December 23, 2019 to January 3, 2020. We will resume regular daily publishing on Monday, January 6. If you have any trouble accessing your Lawyerly account or have subscription enquiries during this time, please email subscriptions@lawyerly.com.au.

The close relationship between regulator action over corporate wrongdoing and private enforcement is an established and powerful means of recovering compensation for victims of corporate misconduct. Increased cooperation between regulators and litigants in class actions would remove a number of substantial barriers to private enforcement action, writes Slater and Gordon lawyer Caitlin Baker.

Against a backdrop of an industrial relations system which has diminished union and workers’ power, class actions are again re-emerging as an alternative tool to challenge employers’ unlawful conduct. And in the current class actions landscape, the ability to run closed class proceedings on behalf of union members, or otherwise offer alternative fee arrangements to non-members in open class proceedings, is essential to trade unions’ willingness to embrace the representative proceeding regime, writes Slater & Gordon lawyer Alex Blennerhassett.

The admissibility of print-outs from the “Wayback Machine – Internet Archive” website is increasingly being considered by the Federal Court of Australia. The decision of Justice Burley in Dyno Nobel Inc v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd on September 17 provides clear insight to the court’s approach to Wayback evidence and the circumstances in which it might be admissible, writes Bird & Bird’s Lynne Lewis and Angelica Sorn.

This month’s decision by the Queensland Supreme Court confirming the validity of the class action funding business model in jurisdictions whose legislatures have not abolished the tort of maintenance and champerty is a landmark one, writes Piper Alderman partners Greg Whyte and Lillian Rizio.

The ACCC has issued final guidelines on how Australia’s competition laws will apply to intellectual property assignments and licences following the repeal of the ‘IP exemption’ from prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct which was contained in subsection 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act. As of September 13 the IP exemption no longer applies, however, certain worked examples remain undeveloped or unrealistic, such that uncertainties remain as to the ACCC’s likely approach in particular matters, writes Patrick Gay and Amalia Stone of Herbert Smith Freehills.

The ACCC’s recommendation in its digital inquiry report for a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy has merit as a mechanism to safeguard individual’s privacy where it is not protected by the Privacy Act or the patchwork of surveillance and related legislation. But it remains to be seen whether there will be any greater governmental impetus than on previous occasions to make the legislative changes required, writes Gilbert + Tobin partner Melissa Fai and lawyer Stephanie Essey.

From October 1, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will apply an updated cartel immunity and cooperation policy, with the changes said to reflect the ACCC’s experiences from key criminal investigations undertaken to date. The ACCC is also launching an online portal to allow whistleblowers to anonymously report alleged cartel conduct directly to the ACCC. Here, King & Wood Mallesons partner Peta Stevenson and senior associate Jacqueline Ibrahim tells you what you need to know about these significant developments.

In a recent decision, Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach approved the settlement of the securities class action against Sirtex Medical. The approval included the judge making a common fund order and allowing funder IMF Bentham’s commission in the amount of $10 million, namely 25% of the gross settlement sum of $40 million. In approving the commission, Justice Beach noted that the rate should properly provide a reward for the risks undertaken by the funder, writes IMF Bentham’s Gavin Beardsell and Kate Hurford.