Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Can defendants avoid or limit their liability through contractual provisions?

March 15, 2022

Can defendants avoid or limit their liability through contractual provisions?

The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker and Jon Na, of Piper Alderman. Applicants often confront the proposition, which respondents typically use in their defense, that terms in consumer contracts will effectively exclude or restrict the claims that have been brought. The High Court of Australia recently weighed in on this issue, deciding that a mortgage contained an enforceable promise by the borrowers not to raise a statutory limitation defense in relation to a claim by the lenders, which was commenced out of time. Price v Spoor [2021] HCA 20 In a slight twist to the typical scenario, the lenders were the plaintiffs who brought recovery proceedings after the expiry of the period stipulated in Queensland’s Limitation of Actions Act 1974. The borrowers argued no monies were owed because the claim was well and truly statute barred. Proceedings should have been brought by 2011, but the lender did not file a claim until 2017. In reply, the lender relied on this clause in the contract: “The Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgage[e] that the provisions of all statutes now or hereafter in force whereby or in consequence whereof any o[r] all of the powers rights and remedies of the Mortgagee and the obligations of the Mortgagor hereunder may be curtailed, suspended, postponed, defeated or extinguished shall not apply hereto and are expressly excluded insofar as this can lawfully be done.” The effect of which was said to be a promise not to take the limitation point. The lender’s argument failed at first instance (before Dalton J) but was overturned on appeal (by Gotterson JA on behalf of Sofronoff P and Morrison JA) and then ultimately vindicated by the High Court (Kiefel CJ and Edelman J, with whom Gageler, Gordon and Steward JJ agreed). The public policy principle Part of their Honours’ reasoning was that what is conferred by a limitations statute is a right on a defendant to plead as a defense the expiry of a limitation period. A party may contract for consideration not to exercise that right, or to waive it, as a defendant. That is not contrary to public policy. This, in our view, is akin to agreements frequently entered between prospective parties to a litigation to toll a limitation period (suspend time running) for an agreed amount of time. That can be contrasted with a clause in an agreement that imposes a three- year time limit instead of six, for bringing a claim for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.[1] Clauses of that kind are unenforceable based on a well-established principle that such clauses impermissibly seek to restrict a party’s recourse to his or her statutory rights and remedies, contrary to law and public policy. The “public policy principle” was first identified by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (No 1) (1988) 39 FCR 546. Henjo has been referred to and applied in numerous cases since, and cited with approval in the High Court.[2] This is not to say that contractual limitations can never be effective in limited circumstances – this much was shown in Price v Spoor. The question of whether commercial parties to a contract can negotiate and agree on temporal or monetary limits while not completely excluding the statutory remedies for misleading and deceptive conduct claims under section 18 of the ACL remains debatable[3]  – but those specific circumstances do not arise here. About the Authors: Valerie Blacker is a commercial litigator focusing on funded litigation. Valerie has been with Piper Alderman Lawyers for over 12 years. With a background in class actions, Valerie also prosecutes funded commercial litigation claims. She is responsible for a number of high value, multi-party disputes for the firm’s major clients. Jon Na is a litigation and dispute resolution lawyer at Piper Alderman with a primary focus on corporate and commercial disputes. Jon is involved in a number of large, complex matters in jurisdictions across Australia. For queries or comments in relation to this article please contact Kat Gieras | T: +61 7 3220 7765 | E:  kgieras@piperalderman.com.au — [1] For example in Brighton Australia Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 246 [2] For example in IOOF Australia Trustees (NSW) Ltd v Tantipech [1998] FCA 924 at 479-80; Scarborough v Klich [2001] NSWCA 436 at [74]; MBF Investments Pty Ltd v Nolan [2011] VSCA 114 at [217]; JJMR Pty Ltd v LG International Corp [2003] QCA 519 at [10]; JM & PM Holdings Pty Ltd v Snap-on Tools (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 347 at [55]; Burke v LFOT Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 17 at [143]. [3] For example in G&S Engineering Services Pty Ltd v Mach Energy Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1721.

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Red Lion Chambers Hires Former Harbour Director for Client Role

By John Freund |

Red Lion Chambers has taken a notable step in strengthening its engagement with litigation funders and commercial clients by appointing a former senior figure from the funding industry into a newly created client-facing role. The move reflects the increasingly close relationship between the UK Bar and third-party litigation finance, particularly in complex commercial and group actions where funding strategy and legal execution are closely intertwined.

An article in Global Legal Post reports that Red Lion Chambers has appointed James Hartley, formerly a director at Harbour Litigation Funding, as its first director of client relationships. In this newly established position, Hartley will be responsible for developing relationships with solicitors, funders, and other clients, as well as helping to align the chambers’ barristers with funded opportunities across commercial litigation, arbitration, and competition claims.

Hartley brings several years of experience from the funding side of the market, having worked at Harbour Litigation Funding where he was involved in evaluating claims, structuring funding arrangements, and working closely with law firms and counsel on strategy. His move to Red Lion Chambers underscores the value chambers are placing on individuals who understand both the legal and financial dynamics of funded disputes, as well as the commercial drivers behind claim selection and case management.

According to the report, Red Lion Chambers sees the appointment as part of a broader effort to modernise how barristers’ chambers engage with the market, particularly as clients and funders increasingly expect a more coordinated and commercially aware approach from counsel. The role is intended to complement, rather than replace, the traditional clerking function, with a specific focus on strategic relationships and long-term growth areas.

Case Developments Commercial

Longford Capital and Susman Godfrey Sued Over $32m Arbitration Award

By John Freund |

A new lawsuit has placed litigation funder Longford Capital Corp and prominent US trial firm Susman Godfrey LLP at the center of a high-stakes dispute over the ownership and allocation of arbitration proceeds, highlighting the growing complexity and occasional friction in funded litigation arrangements. The case stems from a roughly $32 million arbitration award tied to patent litigation recoveries and raises questions about the enforceability of funding agreements, arbitration clauses, and the definition of recoverable proceeds.

An article in Reuters reports that the lawsuit was filed in Texas state court by Arigna, an Ireland-based patent monetization company that previously worked with Susman Godfrey to pursue semiconductor-related patent claims. Arigna alleges that it was improperly forced into arbitration and that the resulting award in favor of Longford was tainted by arbitrator misconduct. According to the complaint, Arigna is seeking to have the arbitration award vacated and to recover approximately $5.5 million in settlement funds currently held in escrow.

The dispute traces back to a funding arrangement entered into after Arigna retained Susman Godfrey to pursue patent enforcement actions. Susman subsequently secured third-party litigation financing from Longford Capital. Tensions emerged over how Longford’s entitlement to proceeds should be calculated, particularly in relation to settlements involving multiple defendants and intellectual property assets that Arigna claims were outside the scope of the original funding deal. An earlier federal court battle over whether the dispute belonged in court or arbitration ultimately resulted in the matter being sent to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in Longford’s favor.

Now, Arigna argues that the arbitration should never have occurred and that Longford and Susman overreached in asserting rights to settlement proceeds. Longford has defended the award as valid and enforceable, while Susman Godfrey is also named as a defendant due to its role in structuring and executing the underlying legal and funding arrangements.

Case Developments Commercial

LitFin Backs €250m Antitrust Claims for Farmers

By John Freund |

LitFin, the Prague-headquartered litigation financier, has reached a major procedural milestone in one of Europe’s largest coordinated private antitrust actions, backing claims on behalf of more than 1,700 agricultural businesses harmed by a long-running pesticide cartel in Germany. In December 2025, damages claims approaching €250 million, including interest, were formally filed against wholesale distributors of plant protection products found to have engaged in unlawful price-fixing over nearly two decades.

LitFin reports that the claims are grounded in binding findings by Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, which determined that cartel conduct spanned from 1998 to 2015 and covered almost the entire market for plant protection products. That infringement resulted in administrative fines totaling approximately €157 million. Under German and EU competition law, such findings create a strong presumption that purchasers paid unlawful price surcharges during both the cartel period and its after-effects—forming the economic basis of the damages now being pursued by affected farmers.

The lawsuit has been filed by WAGNER LEGAL Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, a Hamburg-based firm specializing in antitrust damages litigation, working in close coordination with the funder. According to LitFin, the claims are supported by a comprehensive economic analysis prepared by competition experts at Charles River Associates, quantifying the alleged overcharges suffered by claimants across the German agricultural sector.

For the agricultural businesses involved, the filing represents more than just a legal step forward. Without third-party funding, coordinating and prosecuting claims of this scale against well-resourced defendants would likely have been impractical. LitFin’s involvement enabled aggregation of claims, risk-sharing, and the deployment of specialist legal and economic expertise across a complex, multi-claimant proceeding.