Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Looks Dubious – The Third Ground to Restrain a Lawyer from Acting

April 5, 2023

Looks Dubious – The Third Ground to Restrain a Lawyer from Acting

The following piece was contributed by Valerie Blacker, commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation, and Amelia Atkinson, litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman. Strata Voting Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Axios IT Pty Ltd and Anor[1] is a funded single plaintiff action. It involved a recent examination of the Court’s power to prevent a lawyer from acting in proceedings for a conflict of interest. The authors represented Strata Voting in its successful defense of the restraint application. The Third Ground Less frequently invoked than the first and second grounds (misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty), the third category upon which to restrain a lawyer in a position of conflict from acting in a matter is known as the “inherent jurisdiction” ground. The Court can restrain lawyers from acting in a particular case as an incident of its inherent jurisdiction over its officers and control of its processes.[2] The jurisdiction is enlivened where there is an objective perception that a lawyer lacks independence such that the Court is compelled to interfere and remove the lawyer from acting in the matter. In other words, the position of the lawyer makes the Court uneasy. The test for intervention is whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, requires that a legal practitioner should be prevented from acting.[3] Axios’ failed application The jurisdiction to enjoin a solicitor from acting is to be regarded as exceptional, and to be exercised by the court with caution. That was the basis on which his Honour Judge Dart of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed the application brought to restrain Piper Alderman from acting for the liquidators. Here, Piper Alderman is acting for the company in relation to a dispute which was in existence before the winding up commenced.  The liquidator retained Piper Alderman to continue acting for the company for the purpose of the litigation, the subject of the existing dispute. The supposed conflict was said to have arisen from a proof of debt which Piper Alderman lodged for about $47,000 in fees incurred prior to the administration. The argument was that Piper Alderman’s impartiality was impaired by the fact that unless the litigation is successful, Piper Alderman will not be paid its outstanding fees because there will be no funds in the winding up to do so. Axios contended that “the conduct of the solicitor was so offensive to common notions of fairness and justice that they should, as officers of the Court, be restrained from acting”. However, his Honour considered the firm’s status as creditor to be unremarkable. Even in a case where a substantial sum (over $830,000) was owed to lawyers by their insolvent client,[4] there was no risk to the proper administration of justice. As everyone knows, solicitors routinely act in matters where they are owed money including conditional costs agreements, risk share arrangements, contingency fee arrangements and agreements that include uplift fees, to name a few. The restraint application in Strata Voting was unsurprisingly and swiftly[5] dismissed with costs. Conclusion If an opposing party asserts that a lawyer should be restrained from acting for the opponent, it is necessary for a clear case to be made that the lawyer is in a position where he is fixed with an interest of such a nature that he may fail in his overriding duty to the court. It requires proof of facts, and not mere speculation as to motive. The risk to the due administration of justice has to be a real one. Otherwise, a litigant ought not to be deprived of the lawyer of his choice. — About the Authors: Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims. Amelia Atkinson is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Amelia is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Amelia Atkinson | T: +61 7 3220 7767 | E:  aatkinson@piperalderman.com.au [1] Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Dart J, 23 January 2023 (Strata Voting). [2] Kallinicos & Anor v Hunt [2005] NSWSC 118 at [76] (Kallinicos). [3] Ibid. [4] Naczek & Dowler [2011] FamCAFC 179, [84]. [5] In a 5-page judgment.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.