Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Class action inquiry descends into a questioning of influence

Plaintiff firms accused Liberal politicians of being lobbied by “foreign influence” to tighten regulations whilst the Liberals hit back on Labor lobbying on class action campaigns and contingency fees.

user iconTony Zhang 29 July 2020 Big Law
Class action inquiry
expand image

The main issue in this week’s inquiry hearing was centred on lobbying and influence, with plaintiff lawyers saying it will harm Australians’ access to justice by requiring litigation funders to comply with investment regulations.

Plaintiff lawyers have accused an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce of “foreign influence” for lobbying to tighten Australia’s regulation of litigation funding and class actions.

The representatives of law firms, who appeared before a parliamentary inquiry, included Maurice Blackburn, Slater and Gordon, and Shine Lawyers, and according to Class Actions Australia, all these firms are part of the Keep Corporations Honest campaign. 

 
 

Class Actions Australia spokesperson and Slater and Gordon head of class action, Ben Hardwick, described how the interference of the US lobby was concerning after MP Jason Falinski challenged the suggestion that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg had met with the US Chamber of Commerce just days before announcing draconian new regulation of class action funding. 

“We know the US Chamber of Commerce is lobbying furiously to reduce the impact of Australian class actions because they don’t like their multinational members, like [Johnson & Johnson], being sued by regular Australians. It is important to recognise this and fight it. The pernicious influence of big money American-style business lobbying should have no place in Australian politics,” Mr Hardwick said. 

Shine Lawyers’ head of class actions, Jan Saddler, told the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services there was already a strong scrutiny on plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders.

“The disputes are almost always contested and involve all parties expending many millions of dollars in legal costs prosecuting and defending the issues in dispute,” Ms Saddler said. 

“There is the risk that if unsuccessful, the other party’s costs are payable. Quite simply, without the support of litigation funders, Shine would not be able to act for as many [well-deserving] Australians as it does.” 

Mr Hardwick told the inquiry that, without class actions, the justice system would be “accessible only to the wealthy few”.

However, Liberal parliamentarians returned fire by arguing 14 plaintiff law firms and litigation funders had failed to adequately disclose they were behind the Keep Corporations Honest campaign and questioned whether a $100,000 donation to Labor was linked to favourable reforms enacted by the Victorian government.

Mr Falinski reiterated the Treasurer and his office had “not ever met the US Chamber of Commerce” to discuss litigation funding and accused the plaintiff lawyers of dishonest tactics to prosecute their case.

The Liberal senator James Paterson asked Mr Hardwick whether Keep Corporations Honest had disclosed who was behind the campaign.

Mr Hardwick told the inquiry that 14 bodies were listed on the lobbying register as clients of Cornerstone Group and were therefore “fully transparent about the relationship to the campaign”. 

The register notes they are among 46 clients of the lobbyist but does not disclose any details about the campaign.

Mr Falinski also pressed on the $100,000 donation by Maurice Blackburn to the Australian Labor Party on 26 March 2019, which inquiry documents revealed was the same day directors of the firm had met the Victorian Attorney-General Jill Hennessy.

Maurice Blackburn’s head of class actions, Andrew Watson, confirmed the firm had made lobby attempts to both Victorian and NSW attorneys-general to introduce contingency fees, but he had “no idea” who attended the meeting but was “almost certain” contingency fees were not discussed at the 26 March meeting.

The inquiry is set to return on Wednesday, with major backers of class action reforms set to attend including the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the AI Group along with regulators, ASIC and the ACCC.

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!