A judge overseeing a class action by family members and deceased estates of the Northern Territory Stolen Generations, which settled for $50.45 million, has said the case was a “positive example” of representative actions.
A judge has criticised a bid by the NSW government to access seven months of messages relating to drugs by the lead plaintiff in a class action over allegedly illegal strip searches at a Byron Bay music festival, saying they seemed “wholly irrelevant” to the case.
A judge has approved a $50.45 million settlement in a class action by family members and deceased estates of the Northern Territory Stolen Generations. He has also approved a 13 per cent funding commission by way of a common fund order, saying debates about CFOs had become “lost in the label”.
Shareholders have brought a class action in Australia against New Zealand-based Fletcher Building, alleging the company failed to disclose material information relating to its construction division.
Lawyerly’s Litigation Law Firms of 2022 racked up precedent-setting victories in a year that continued to see major developments in class action law.
An investor class action against RCR Tomlinson has reached a walk-away settlement agreement with two former directors of the failed engineering company.
After initial qualms, a judge has signed off on a $29.5 million settlement in a class action against recycling company Sims that includes a “staggering” $8.5 million in legal costs and an insurance policy buffering the funder from adverse costs.
Class action settlement sums reached new highs last year, with the ten largest agreements totalling almost $1 billion, almost half of which was secured by one plaintiff law firm.
In a boost to shareholder class actions, the High Court has dismissed an application by engineering services firm Worley to appeal a finding that companies should disclose to the market forecasts that ought reasonably to have been held.
A judge weighing a $29.5 million settlement in a class action against recycling company Sims Limited has questioned the court’s power to vary the funding agreement between the applicant and funder, which seeks to pass on its insurance costs to group members as well as recoup costs and earn a commission.