JWS Consulting is a division of Johnson Winter & Slattery providing commercial consulting services.
We are engaged by major Australian and international corporations as legal counsel on their business activities, disputes and most challenging matters.
Our news and media coverage including major transaction announcements, practitioner appointments and team expansions.
We support a number of community initiatives and not for profit organisations across Australia through pro bono legal work and charitable donations.
We support a number of organisations through sponsorships.
Lee J’s recent decision in Perera v GetSwift Ltd (GetSwift)1 to allow only one overlapping class action to proceed (the Webb Proceeding) and to permanently stay the other two Federal Court actions (Perera and McTaggart) is likely to have far reaching consequences because of the Court’s findings as to the determinative “discrimens” between the three competing actions. It also highlights unresolved complications arising from the existence of funding agreements with group members in the stayed proceedings.
After a “multifactorial” assessment (i.e. a beauty parade) of the competing actions, Lee J concluded that many factors were equal but the “partly cost-based” terms proposed in the Webb Proceeding, and the measures offered for controlling legal costs, were superior to the other proposals. While conscious of the limitations of the modelling, Lee J was “satisfied that the Webb Proceeding was very likely, in most scenarios at all stages of the proceedings, to produce a better return for group members to whom the Court has special responsibilities of a protective nature”.2
Three separate funded open class actions were brought against GetSwift on behalf of shareholders of GetSwift. The cases proposed to be advanced were substantially the same. None of the applicants advocated for consolidation or for permitting each open class proceeding to continue to a joint initial trial.
Orders were sought from the Court to resolve the multiplicity. The Court assessed the comparative merits of the competing proposals and determined which competing class action ought to proceed, and so consequently which ought to be permanently stayed.
Perera proposal – 103 class members with 2,575,804 shares, funded by ILP18, funding agreements and retainer agreements entered into, funding commission between 25% and 40% (based on amount of shares held), proposed common fund order involving payment the lesser of 25% of net proceeds or 22.5% of gross proceeds (capped at not greater than 25% of net proceeds), provision of security for costs by cash deposit, bond or insurance cover, no suggestion regarding involvement of referee or Court appointed expert
McTaggart proposal – 208 class members with 1,545,374 shares, funded by Vannin (Malta), funding agreements entered into but no retainer agreements, funding commission of 10% if proceeds received before the end of 2018, 20% if received before 26 September 2019 and 30% if received thereafter, proposed common fund order in the same terms, provision of security for costs by ATE insurance or cash deposit and $250,000 currently held on trust, no suggestion regarding involvement of referee or Court appointed expert
Webb proposal – no funded group members, no funding agreement, retainer agreement only between applicant and solicitors, commission “proposed” to be of the lesser of 2.2 times expenses paid by the funder if settlement agreement entered into on or before 12 April 2019, (or 2.8 times thereafter) or 20% of the net litigation proceeds, provision of security for costs by ATE policy and deed of indemnity or cash plus suggested Court appointed referee to conduct periodic review of legal costs incurred and acceptance of scope for the appointment of one expert forensic economist to assist the Court in respect of matters of loss causation and the quantification of loss and damage (as opposed to each party having their own expert).
While the Court stressed that each instance of competing class actions needs to be managed by reference to their own “bespoke” circumstances, some of the findings may have broader ramifications. Key findings made by the Court included:3
There are a number of unresolved issues arising from the key findings, including as to how the Court will deal with:
a funder of the stayed proceedings seeking to enforce contractual promises requiring payment of its commission from compensation received via the Webb Proceeding. Lee J considered it would be premature to express even preliminary views about what could be done in this scenario. However, his Honour acknowledged the relevance of this issue to the extent it bears upon whether the course he decided upon is practicable, and as to the issue of what should be said in any opt out notice to the funded group members about the possibility (notwithstanding the common fund order) that they may still be subject to some future claim by the funders.
a group member exercising their statutory right to opt out of the non-stayed proceedings and seeking to run their own actions or join together with others and commencing a further class action. Lee J referred to this scenario as “unsatisfactory”, however it remains to be seen how the Court would respond to this situation.
The existence and terms of the funding agreements in the Perera and McTaggart proceedings were viewed as being a complication because they do not contemplate competing class action or stays. The Court also sought to avoid encouraging pre-action book building because “[t]o give active encouragement to the existence of funding agreements in the context of competing class actions would serve to undermine the benefit occasioned by the rise of the funded class securities class action”.5 While recognising the funder’s sunk costs of the book build, the Court did not consider the deprivation of the hoped for commercial return to be a significant prejudice that was of particular importance.
An appeal is likely including in respect of the findings that many factors were equal. If leave to appeal is allowed, the Full Court will provide further clarity around the complications arising from competing and overlapping funded class actions. In the meantime, it is evident from this judgment and from the just released ALRC discussion paper6 that the class action landscape will continue to evolve and change at pace. This judgment demonstrates again the Court’s willingness to be proactive in its supervisory and protective role in relation to group members.
1  FCA 732, delivered on 23 May 2018.
2 At .
3 For the full summary of Justice Lee’s findings, see section I of the judgment at -.
4 As that expression is used in s 33N(1)(c).
5 At .
First, on 29 November 2019, the Queensland floods class action judgement was delivered by Beech-Jones J in Rodriguez & Sons Pty Ltd v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority trading as Seqwater (No...
The Myer continuous disclosure class action decision1 is a landmark: the first judgment in a securities class action in Australia, and the first case explicitly accepting “market-based causation...
The Supreme Court of Victoria’s recent decision in Pacific Dairies Limited v Orican Pty Ltd illustrates judicial unwillingness to interfere in shareholder disputes, even in cases involving...