A judge has approved a $3.5 million settlement in a class action brought by former clients of Sydney fraudster Melissa Caddick.
As the High Court hears oral arguments this week on the reach of power to make common fund orders for firms and funders bringing class actions, Lawyerly gives a cheat sheet on what the justices could do.
A judge is concerned that if he approves all payouts sought by lawyers and funders from a $13.5 million settlement in a class action against a Quintis director, group members will only he left with just 18 per cent.
The High Court has agreed to rule on whether common fund orders can ever be made in class actions, including so-called solicitors’ common fund orders allowing lawyers to earn a cut of any settlement.
If it takes up the Federal Court’s ruling in favour of solicitors seeking to earn a cut from a class action, the High Court will be asked to overrule its 2019 decision against common fund orders.
The High Court has been asked to overturn a Full Court decision finding lawyers can take a cut from a class action settlement under a solicitors’ common fund order and to finally settle the question of whether the court has the power to issue common fund orders at all.
Lawyers are allowed to take a cut from a class action settlement or judgment under a so-called solicitors’ common fund order, the Full Federal Court has ruled, saying they are a permissive use of the court’s power.
Hearing arguments Tuesday on whether lawyers should be permitted to earn contingency fees in Federal Court class actions, judges on a Full Court bench appeared to lean in favour of allowing so-called solicitors’ common fund orders, rejecting claims they are “unjust”.
A judge has resigned before delivering judgment in litigation that went to trial in 2020, and the colleague assigned the unenviable task of issuing a ruling has taken a swipe at his departing peer, noting the absence of medical or other evidence to explain her “unwillingness” to see the case through.
Logistics company GetSwift and its directors have dropped their challenge to a judgment that found the company breached its continuous disclosure obligations with its “PR-driven” approach to ASX statements.