The risk that a proceeding may be terminated for want of funding is a highly relevant consideration under s 33ZDA(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic). A costs sharing arrangement between the law practice and a litigation funder does not transform a group costs order application into an impermissible common fund order. Future applicants for group costs orders should present investment evaluation evidence based on principled assessment of risk and return, including internal rate of return analysis, rather than relying solely on comparative market data. The financial viability of both existing and proposed funding arrangements is a relevant consideration.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 32 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 32 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.