Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited v Murphy Operator Pty Ltd & Ors

[2020] QCA 250

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Abuse of Legal Process
3. › Maintenance and Champerty
4. › Litigation funding agreements
5. › Class actions
6. › Whether funding agreements conferring control on funder unenforceable as against public policy
7. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), Part 13A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Class actions
3. › Litigation funding
4. › Closed class defined by reference to funding arrangement
5. › Whether degree of funder control renders funding agreement unenforceable
6. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), ss 103B, 103K(2)(b)
1. Contract
2. › Illegality and public policy
3. › Champertous agreements
4. › Whether litigation funding agreement void as against public policy
5. › Whether modern law of maintenance and champerty renders funding agreements unenforceable
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Declaratory relief
3. › Whether court should determine question of enforceability of funding agreements
4. › Whether question hypothetical
5. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 483(2)

Quick Take

Litigation funding agreements for class actions in Queensland are not unenforceable as against public policy merely because they confer a degree of practical control over the litigation on the funder and entitle the funder to a share of any recovery. The statutory regime in Part 13A of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) recognises the necessity of such arrangements. The vestigial principles underlying the tort of maintenance have been subsumed by the modern law of abuse of process. The question whether a general trade in tort claims on an open market would affect public confidence in the courts was left open.