Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Australia

By John Freund |
October 21, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Australia

On Wednesday October 16th (Thursday the 17th, in Australia), LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled ‘Spotlight on Australia.’ The event featured Michelle Silvers (MS), CEO at Court House Capital, Stuart Price (SP), CEO and Managing Director of CASL, Maurice Thompson (MT), Global Head of Litigation Funding at HFW, and Jason Geisker (JG), Head of Claims Funding Australia. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Unfortunately, Jason Geisker was unable to join the panel due to technical difficulties. However, the other three panelists covered a broad range of topics relating to litigation funding in Australia. Below are key takeaways from the event:

ET: Australia is a pioneer in the use of litigation finance. Can you provide an overview of the Australian market?

MS: Australia has been involved in litigation funding for over 20 years, since the late 1990s. At the moment it’s an interesting environment, we have listed and private funders, hedge funds, law firms and private insurers. Our market is dominated by litigation funders, not necessarily alternative capital sources, which is what tends to happen overseas. We’ve witnessed the market globalizing with offshore funders entering, and local funders expanding abroad, but a lot of the offshore funders have withdrawn from the market in recent years.

The market is small – Australia’s population is 25-28 million, so you can imagine that the way we operate here is quite different than overseas. We have about 10 players operating in the Australian market at the moment. Our environment is quite different than overseas, it’s smaller and well-knit. We all know each other quite well, we compete for the same cases. It’s fierce competition, and an exciting environment.

ET: In terms of return profile, I ‘ve been privy to a lot of litigation finance resolutions on a global basis, and in my review of the data, it strikes me that Australian funders are some of the best in terms of producing consistent returns, albeit the quantum of financing is a little bit smaller than what you might find in the US. Generally speaking, do you agree with that? And to what would you attribute the performance of Australian funders?

SP: I attribute that to the predictability of outcomes, and that really comes from the jurisdiction being established for a long time. Some of the growing pains that other jurisdictions are having, are dealing with new issues and new laws. Most of our bench that deals with litigation funding and new actions, they were senior and junior lawyers, partners, barristers, and now have become judges. So there is an ingrained knowledge of the system, and an appreciation of the importance of litigation funding to provide access to justice.

That in itself also goes with the Australian civil justice system, which is an absolute Rolls Royce. It is gold-plated, it is costly, so you need to be able to navigate that in a way where duration risk doesn’t become an issue to you. So when you talk about performance, I absolutely agree Australia is up there as one of the better performing markets in the world. We select our cases well and we settle cases before trial (about 95% of cases settle before trial – that brings duration risk down). That combination of factors are all a reflection of the 25 years-plus of existing in this market.

ET: Up until recently, outside of the class action space, lawyers have not been able to engage in contingent fee arrangements, but jurisdictions like Victoria have changed this dynamic. Can you discuss the current state of contingent fee arrangements and its likely trajectory, and the implications for the litigation funding market?

MT: Everything Stuart mentioned about this being an isolated part of the world, and the impacts that has on doing business here, is absolutely correct. A flip on that though, is that degree of isolation that we’ve had as a nation has always had us looking closely outside of our borders. So we observe what’s happening in other parts of the world and that influences how we think.

Some of the comments you’ve heard might suggest that we’re a slightly immature legal market, in the sense that politics have impacted the courts and there has been some degree of uncertainty since 2020. But I’d flip that and say that this is a case of us looking hard at what we need moving forward and what will suit Australia. The largest differential between us and the United States, for instance, is that we never want to see a situation in Australia where the overweight child might sue the fast food chain because some lawyer provides contingent fee arrangements, all those sorts of things. We’ve laughed at that scenario overseas, and we don’t want that here. So the whole idea of contingent fees stirs up all sorts of feelings in our legal environment, and in having to deal with those negative perceptions, we have to think very carefully about how we structure things moving forward.

In the period between 2020 and now, there’s been a proliferation of class actions in Victoria to take advantage of the contingent fee arrangements. Not all law firms have done that – my law firm, for instance, we’re running three large plaintiff class actions at the moment, we’ve got a few others in the pipeline. We’re currently not fixated on Victoria, because among other things, the way it’s been dealt with – generally if you want to take full advantage of a contingent arrangement sanction by the court and legislation, you have to bear all the risk of the costs and a security for costs order against the law firm. And most law firms won’t stomach that at all (because this is so new). But other law firms see this as an opportunity – particularly large national firms like Maurice Blackburn for instance. Large firms like that will take advantage because they can finance the risk. If I’m going to sell that to my partners in London, Asia or elsewhere, it’s a different proposition.

So we are inching closer to a wider opportunity for law firms to take on contingent risk, but we’re not there yet. I don’t think it’s going to be the free for all that people have been concerned about. That’s not to say there hasn’t been class actions flooding into Victoria as opposed to other states, but I think that will slow down. And so a firm like us is looking beyond the Victoria borders.

To view the entire 1-hour discussion, please click here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

Commercial

UK Government Signals Funding Crackdown in Claims Sector Reform

By John Freund |

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.