Trending Now

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
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Guillermo Ruiz Medrano, Attorney, CUATRECASAS

By John Freund |

Guillermo Ruiz Medrano is a Spanish lawyer based in Barcelona, specializing in advising local and international clients on litigation finance deals and restructuring transactions, with a focus on international and cross-border deals, and engaged in the implementation of cutting-edge litigation funding structures.

Company Name and Description: CUATRECASAS - a leading multi-disciplinary Spanish law firm, providing comprehensive legal services to clients across various industries. With a strong presence in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, among others, the firm is recognized for its innovative solutions and commitment to excellence.  

Company Website: https://www.cuatrecasas.com/en/spain/

Year Founded: 1917

Headquarters: Barcelona and Madrid (Spain).

Area of Focus: Litigation Funding and Restructuring

Member Quote: Litigation funding in Spain is experiencing a dynamic transformation, making it an exciting jurisdiction for both national and international players. With the market expanding rapidly and new regulations on the horizon, particularly for consumer cases, Spain offers a fertile ground for innovative funding solutions. This burgeoning landscape ensures that litigation funding here is not only robust but also poised for sustainable growth, making Spain a premier destination for legal investment.

Read More

Pegasus Legal Capital Completes $74 Million Securitization to Fuel Growth

Pegasus Legal Capital, LLC ("Pegasus") (mylawfunds.com), a prominent pre-settlement legal funding company in the United States, announced today that it has successfully completed a $74 million litigation finance securitization. This achievement marks Pegasus' second securitization transaction in the asset class and another significant milestone in its capital market journey. The proceeds from this transaction will further propel Pegasus' growth across key markets in the United States.

Pegasus Managing Director, Alexander Khanas, expressed, "With the successful completion of this transaction, Pegasus will expand its business in the personal injury market while upholding its industry-leading service standards."

GreensLedge Capital Markets LLC played the role of Placement Agent for Pegasus. GreensLedge Senior Managing Director, Douglas Lipton, added, "We are delighted to continue expanding Pegasus' investor base through their second securitization issuance and assisting them in creatively developing their platform."

Headquartered in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Pegasus was founded in 2008 as a pre-settlement litigation finance company. Since its inception, the company's management team has successfully sourced, underwritten, and serviced over half a billion dollars through more than 30,000 advances. While Pegasus has traditionally focused on the New York market, it has established a strong presence in the Southeast and Texas markets as well.

Pegasus is a proud member of the American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), a national organization comprising companies that provide non-recourse funds to personal injury victims. ALFA's primary objective is to establish industry standards for transparency in legal funding transactions, ensuring upfront and clear disclosure to consumers.

Read More

Litigation Lending Appoints Emma Colantonio as Chief Investment Officer

In a post on LinkedIn, Australian funder Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced the promotion of Emma Colantonio to the position of Chief Investment Officer. In the announcement, LLS said that Emma’s dedication and strategic insight have been instrumental to the success of the business.

Colantonio joined LLS in 2021 as an investment manager and served in that role for two years before being promoted to senior investment manager in May 2023. Prior to joining LLS in 2021, Colantonio had also spent five years at MinterEllison as a senior associate, as well as having served as a senior legal counsel at Commonwealth Bank. 

In her own post on LinkedIn, Colantonio provided the following comment: “Excited to step into the role as Chief Investment Officer at Litigation Lending Services Limited! A big thank you to the leadership team for their trust and support. Looking forward to driving our mission forward and exploring new opportunities in litigation funding.”As LFJ reported in August of this year, Colantonio was recently appointed to the board of The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (AALF) as a non executive director, replacing LLS’ own Stephen Conrad in that position.