Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

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

CAT Rules in Favour of BT in Harbour-Funded Claim Valued at £1.3bn

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported yesterday, funders and law firms alike are looking to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as one of the most influential factors for the future of the UK litigation market in 2025 and beyond. A judgment released by the CAT yesterday that found in favour of Britain’s largest telecommunications business may provide a warning to industry leaders of the uncertainty around funding these high value collective proceedings.

An article in The Global Legal Post provides an overview of the judgment handed down by the CAT in Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC, as the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the telecoms company following the trial in March of this year. The opt-out claim valued at around £1.3 billion, was first brought before the Tribunal in 2021 and sought compensation for BT customers who had allegedly been overcharged for landline services from October 2015.

In the executive summary of the judgment, the CAT found “that just because a price is excessive does not mean that it was also unfair”, with the Tribunal concluding that “there was no abuse of dominant position” by BT.

The proceedings which were led by class representative Justin Le Patourel, founder of Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL), were financed with Harbour Litigation Funding. When the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) was granted in 2021, Harbour highlighted the claim as having originally been worth up to £600 million with the potential for customers to receive up to £500 if the case had been successful.

In a statement, Le Patourel said that he was “disappointed that it [the CAT] did not agree that these prices were unfair”, but said that they would now consider “whether the next step will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this verdict”. The claimants have been represented by Mishcon de Reya in the case.

Commenting on the impact of the judgment, Tim West, disputes partner at Ashurst, said that it could have a “dampening effect, at least in the short term, on the availability of capital to fund the more novel or unusual claims in the CAT moving forward”. Similarly, Mohsin Patel, director and co-founder of Factor Risk Management, described the outcome as “a bitter pill to swallow” for both the claimants and for the law firm and funder who backed the case.

The CAT’s full judgment and executive summary can be accessed on the Tribunal’s website.

Commercial Fundraising

Sandfield Capital Secures £600m Facility to Expand Funding Operations

By Harry Moran |

Sandfield Capital, a Liverpool-based litigation funder, has reached an agreement for a £600 million facility with Perspective Investments. The investment, which is conditional on the identification of suitable claims that can be funded, has been secured to allow Sandfield Capital to strategically expand its operations and the number of claims it can fund. 

An article in Insider Media covers the the fourth capital raise in the last 12 months for Sandfield Capital, with LFJ having previously covered the most recent £10.5 million funding facility that was secured last month. Since its founding in 2020, Sandfield Capital has already expanded from its original office in Liverpool with a footprint established in London as well. 

Steven D'Ambrosio, chief executive of Sandfield Capital, celebrated the announced by saying:  “This new facility presents significant opportunities for Sandfield and is testament to our business model. Key to our strategy to deploy the facility is expanding our legal panel. There's no shortage of quality law firms specialising in this area and we are keen to develop further strong and symbiotic relationships. Perspective Investments see considerable opportunities and bring a wealth of experience in institutional investment with a strong track record.”

Arno Kitts, founder and chief investment officer of Perspective Investments, also provided the following statement:  “Sandfield Capital's business model includes a bespoke lending platform with the ability to integrate seamlessly with law firms' systems to ensure compliance with regulatory and underwriting standards.  This technology enables claims to be processed rapidly whilst all loans are fully insured so that if a claim is unsuccessful, the individual claimant has nothing to pay. This is an excellent investment proposition for Perspective Investments and we are looking forward to working with the management team who have a track record of continuously evolving the business to meet growing client needs.”

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Australian Google Ad Tech Class Action Commenced on Behalf of Publishers

By Harry Moran |

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

  1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
  2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
  3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
  4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process". 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

  • Law firm: Piper Alderman
  • Funder: Woodsford
  • Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter