The Court granted a group costs order at 30% under s 33ZDA of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) in a consumer class action concerning extended warranty products, finding this rate proportionate to the complexity, class size (estimated in the millions), litigation risk, and the less favourable alternative of third party funding at 32.5%. Harris J held that while a law firm's risk assessment in funding a particular proceeding is relevant to setting the GCO rate, the broader sustainability of a firm's class actions practice is not of itself a relevant consideration under s 33ZDA — the statutory focus remains on ensuring justice is done in the particular proceeding, with group member interests as the primary consideration. On confidentiality, the Court held it is not part of the Court's role to protect the commercial interests of law practices from competition, and that claims for suppression based solely on commercial sensitivity of a firm's litigation funding processes (as distinct from material that could cause forensic disadvantage to plaintiffs or group members) do not meet the threshold under the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).
The full text is available to signed-in members.