*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.

To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).

The latest issue of the Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice (Volume 8 Part 4) contains the following material:

EDITORIALGeneral Editors: Professor Michael Legg and Roderick Joyce QSO QC

  • Lawyers to Be Able to Take Percentage of Class Action Damages in Victoria but Questions Remain Michael Legg
  • “People Who Live in Glass Houses”: Fearn v Tate Gallery Board of Trustees Roderick Joyce, QSO, QC


Litigation Funding of Class Actions Approved in Queensland while Maintenance and Champerty Remain the Law – Wayne Attrill

In its landmark 2006 decision of Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd, the High Court held that a commercial litigation funding arrangement supporting litigation in New South Wales was not contrary to public policy or an abuse of the Court’s process even though it contravened centuries-old prohibitions on maintenance and champerty. New South Wales had by statute abolished maintenance and champerty as torts, but retained the rule that a contract giving effect to maintenance or champerty may be declared contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal. Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have also abolished the torts, while Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory retain them. This article considers the ongoing relevance of maintenance and champerty to litigation funding arrangements in Australia with a focus on the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy Operator v Gladstone Ports Corp (No 4), which declared the funding agreements in that case to not be unenforceable “by reason of maintenance, champerty or public policy”.

Documents Within Reach: Discovery “Powers” – Alexander Sloan

This article explores the concept of “power” in the context of litigants’ discovery obligations. The concept defines the circumstances in which a litigant must make discovery of relevant documents in the possession of others – that is, in the possession of non-parties. It applies to court proceedings in nearly all Australian jurisdictions, and disputes regarding its scope will therefore likely arise in practice. That is all the more so where the litigation involves parties who have a close relationship with the holder of relevant documents. The interests of the non-party document holder will likely be adverse to the document-seeking party. This article focuses on three main contexts where such disputes as to the “power” question tend to arise: corporate groups; directors; and liquidators.

CASE NOTESEditor: Louise Beange

  • The End of the Chorley Exception in Australia: Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow – Benjamin Teng
  • Craig v Williams: Allegations of Apparent Bias Matthew Mortimer

For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: JCivLP Vol 8 No 4 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

For general queries, please contact: [email protected]