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.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Commercial

What’s the Smartest Growth Strategy for Law Firms in 2025? Client Service

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The legal sector is already operating against a backdrop of economic unpredictability, rising client expectations, and fast-moving advances in technology. For firms of all sizes, but especially small and mid-sized practices, the pressing question is: what’s the smartest and most sustainable path to growth?

The answer isn’t a new practice management system or a radical shift in service lines. It’s something more fundamental yet far more powerful: client service.

And not the kind that gets lost in endless phone menus or delegated to faceless chatbots. We’re talking about human-led, AI-supported service that’s fast, personal, and friction-free. In today’s legal market, client service isn’t just an operational necessity. It’s a growth strategy.

Trust as the new currency of growth

Clients navigating complex legal challenges are often anxious, risk-averse, and under pressure. In that environment, trust becomes the currency that drives engagement and retention.

It’s no longer enough for firms to offer technically sound legal advice at competitive rates. Clients want to feel heard, supported, and valued throughout their journey. Firms that can embed this into every interaction, whether it’s the initial consultation or a late-night update, are the ones that win loyalty, referrals, and long-term revenue.

This plays to the strengths of small and mid-sized firms. With leaner teams and flatter hierarchies, they’re often more agile and capable of delivering the personal, tailored support clients crave. A partner who picks up the phone, knows the client’s name, and understands the case context instantly builds credibility. In 2025, that credibility is the bridge between staying relevant and achieving meaningful growth.

Smart tech, human empathy

Yes, AI is everywhere. But the firms using it most effectively are those that integrate it where it adds real value while also keeping the human touch where it matters most.

AI can streamline administrative work, speed up intake, and automate repetitive tasks like document review or appointment scheduling. But it can’t replace the reassurance of a lawyer who listens carefully to a client in distress, or the receptionist who ensures urgent calls are routed to the right person immediately.

The winning formula is balance: let AI handle the heavy lifting, while people deliver the moments that build trust. Imagine a litigation funder using AI to flag cases requiring immediate attention, while a trained case manager provides the nuanced support clients need. Or a family law practice using chatbots for document collection but ensuring sensitive discussions are handled by a real lawyer with empathy and tact.

That combination of efficiency plus empathy is what cuts through the noise.

Service as a growth engine

When client service is done well in law firms, it doesn’t just fix problems it drives growth. Every answered call, prompt update, or thoughtful follow-up is a touchpoint that builds brand equity and deepens relationships. 

Great client service is about being reactive, for example, answering questions, but also it is about being proactive, through spotting patterns, identifying sales opportunities, and deepening client relationships. Your service team becomes a source of insight and influence. And often, they’re the difference between a one-time transaction and long-term loyalty.

Take funding conversations as an example. A firm that keeps clients informed on timelines, explains financing options clearly, and checks in regularly is positioning itself not just as a legal advisor but as a trusted partner. That kind of proactive, client-focused service often creates opportunities for cross-referrals and repeat work.

And thanks to modular, scalable tools—from virtual receptionist to live chat—these capabilities are no longer exclusive to the Am Law 100. Boutique firms and regional practices now have access to the same client service infrastructure as the industry’s largest players.

Connection builds resilience

With margins tight and competition fierce, the strongest legal practices in 2025 will be those that build loyalty through connection. That doesn’t mean over-promising or relying on outdated customer care models. It means meeting people where they are, and offering support that’s proactive, consistent and personal.

It also means supporting teams. When lawyers and staff are backed by smart systems that free them to focus on meaningful work, morale improves. And in a small or mid-sized firm, morale directly fuels performance.

Client service is where growth, loyalty and operational resilience meet. For practices looking to thrive this year, the message is clear: don’t see service as a back-office function. See it as a growth engine, a brand differentiator, and one of the most valuable assets a law firm has.

Because in a market full of uncertainty, the one thing that’s certain is this: customers will always remember how you made them feel. And that feeling might just be the difference between surviving and scaling.