Class action settlement approval hearings are not a time for the court to second guess a law firm’s contingency fee as set down in a group costs order, a judge has found, but the question of proportionality is still key, and evidence of a firm’s return on investment and hourly fees may be relevant to the final decision.
A judge has signed off on the first-ever settlement allowing a law firm to earn a contingency fee, approving a $12.8 million cut for Slater & Gordon in a shareholder class action against G8 Education.
In the first-ever settlement approval hearing involving a group costs order, a contradictor has argued that Slater & Gordon should have provided the court with more information on legal costs and internal rate of return as part of its bid for a $12.8 million contingency fee.
A judge has rejected a law firm’s attempt to update its bid to run class actions against Hyundai and Kia, saying the changes were intended to net the firm a competitive advantage in an upcoming fight for carriage of the class actions and different in substance from its previous position.
A judge will not allow a law firm that stepped in to lead class actions against Hyundai and Kia to amend its funding proposal to seek a group costs order ahead of a carriage fight, even though its proposal would have led to greater returns for group members.
Appellate guidance is needed on whether a history of cooperation between law firms that brought competing class actions can be the deciding factor in a close carriage contest, the Victorian Court of Appeal has heard.
A law firm that brought class actions against Hyundai and Kia over alleged faulty anti-lock braking systems has been replaced ahead of a contest against Maurice Blackburn to run the cases.
Two law firms that were able to “work cooperatively” to join their cases have been awarded carriage of a shareholder class action against mining firm Downer EDI. The judge overseeing the proceedings also approved a group costs order application that proposed a “reasonable rate” of return to the firms.
The judge who rewarded the law firm with the lowest ever GCO proposal with carriage of an $80 million class action this week noted the competitive forces that shaped a “very good deal for group members,” but competition has its downsides, experts say.
The winning, 14 per cent contingency fee proposal by Slater & Gordon in a fight to run a class action against Star Entertainment was not driven by a desire to prevail in the contest and buy market share but was the product of a “reasoned decision” that took into account the law firm’s practice as a whole, a judge has found.