Last year was an exciting one for class action lawyers, with monumental court decisions on competing cases, cross-jurisdictional spats, proportionality in settlements and the power of judges to decide how a recovery is distributed. Here, top class action litigators tell us what the most significant rulings of 2018 were and why the decisions will continue to matter this year.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has lost an appeal of a ruling that dismissed its case over allegedly inadequate disclosures by private health insurer Medibank relating to member benefits.
The law firms that challenged a ruling staying their cases against GetSwift gave the Full Federal Court a chance to guide judges managing competing class actions, but they can’t avoid paying their opponents’ legal costs because the court happened to seize the opportunity.
Law firm Squire Patton Boggs is taking a fight over a ruling that shut down its shareholder class action against logistics startup GetSwift to the High Court.
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has largely prevailed on appeal to the High Court in its case against former directors of collapsed retirement village owner Prime Trust, including former federal health minister Michael Wooldridge.
The two funders paying for a shareholder class action against facility services company Spotless Group want 25 percent of any net settlement or judgment in the case, a rate that mirrors the commission approved in a common fund order now at the centre of a constitutional challenge.
A judge has taken a hatchet to Quinn Emanuel’s fees and the funder’s cut in a $12 million settlement of a class action against Bank of Queensland, a settlement which he previously described as one of the “worst” he’d ever seen.
A judge has signed off on an application to set aside a portion of a $30 million settlement in a class action over the 2004 Palm Island riots for financial counselling for registered group members, saying the court had the power to make the landmark order.
The court’s authority to shut down competing class actions is no longer in doubt after Tuesday’s Full Federal Court judgment in the case against GetSwift, and while there is no “silver bullet” when it comes to how judges must deal with multiple proceedings, there are key factors to weigh, the appeals court said. Here, experts provide the big takeaways from the landmark ruling.
The Full Federal Court has dismissed a challenge to a ruling that chose one of three shareholder class actions to proceed against GetSwift, saying the court had the power to permanently stay competing cases. But an injunction blocking the losing law firms from communicating with clients was going too far, it said.