Practitioners now have a framework for seeking pre-settlement variation of GCOs under s 33ZDA(3): the test is whether variation is appropriate and necessary to ensure justice is done, assessed through a multi-factor analysis (including funding alternatives, abandonment risk, prejudice, proportionality of returns, and tiered structure rationale), without requiring proof of material changed circumstances. However, the Court emphasised such applications should be exceptional and the threshold remains high, meaning practitioners must adduce compelling evidence—particularly regarding the law practice's inability to continue under the existing rate and the absence of viable alternative funding.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.