Justice David O’Callaghan

A recent decision by the Federal Court that questioned whether the introduction of a serious harm test in defamation law could infringe the Judiciary Act has shone a light on the need for a federal defamation framework, legal experts say. 

A judge overseeing two 7-Eleven class actions has signed off on $2.25 million in costs incurred by the funder and lawyers in their pitched battle to win approval for the terms of a $98 million settlement, which included deductions of more than $44 million to cover commission and fees.

A judge has questioned whether recent changes to defamation law requiring courts to determine if a publication has caused serious harm ahead of trial are invalid because of possible inconsistency with the Federal Court’s case management rules.

A court has appointed a referee to examine whether a law firm’s communications with Golden Financial furthered a plan by the financial advisory firm to divert assets to minimise a penalty sought by the corporate regulator in the first case alleging a breach of the so-called best interest duty.

A senior barrister who represented Mayfair 101 founder James Mawhinney in mediation of two cases last year has been allowed to appear against him at a hearing in another dispute against a lender and two McGrathNicol receivers, but the silk won’t participate in settlement talks.

A wife employed by her barrister husband can seek compensation for unpaid wages because the claim is based on their employment relationship not their marital relationship, a court has held.

A judge has approved a $12 million payment to the funder of two franchisee class actions against 7-Eleven, even as the funder plans to appeal a decision rejecting its bid for a common fund order for a $24.5 million commission.

The question of power to make a common fund order at the end of a class action was no longer a hypothetical one and it was time to send the issue to the Full Federal Court. That’s what the 7-Eleven class action judge was told 15 months ago but he failed to heed the advice, resulting in a court deeply divided and funders clamouring for reform.

The High Court killed off all common fund orders, not just the kind sought at the start of a class action, a judge has said as he cut in half the payout for a litigation funder bankrolling two franchisee class actions against 7-Eleven.

A judge has blessed a law firm’s $16.6 million legal bill for running two franchisee class actions against 7-Eleven despite a contradictor’s argument that it had a “troubling” practice of deferring its fees to benefit the funder that bankrolled the cases.