find the latest legal job
Corporate/Commercial Lawyers (2-5 years PAE)
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Specialist commercial law firm · Long-term career progression
View details
Graduate Lawyer / Up to 1.5 yr PAE Lawyer
Category: Personal Injury Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Mentoring Opportunity in Regional QLD · Personal Injury Law
View details
Corporate and Commercial Partner
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Full time · Join a leading Adelaide commercial law firm
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
Firm slams appeal decision in Storm case

Firm slams appeal decision in Storm case

ASIC’s successful appeal against the $82.5 million settlement between former Storm Financial investors and Macquarie Bank is a “serious blow to direct consumer action”, according to the head of Sydney firm Levitt Robinson.

The Full Federal Court decision, handed down yesterday (12 August), supported ASIC’s motion that paying a funder’s premium of 35 per cent to Levitt Robinson clients amounts to an unfair advantage to a small percentage of group members at the expense of the majority.

The deal would have paid around 315 investors who bankrolled the class action a 42 per cent return on their losses, compared to a 17.6 per cent return to those who did not financially contribute to proceedings.

Stewart Levitt (pictured) of Levitt Robinson slammed the decision, claiming it discourages plaintiffs from funding their own class action and forces many to rely on litigation funders, which may not pursue a case if it is not in their financial interests.

“People should be encouraged to take direct action [but] ASIC, which is supposed to promote consumer awareness and consumer participation, is in fact trying to stifle it at every turn,” he told Lawyers Weekly.

“The litigation industry has been heavily protected by this judgment [and] the incentive to come up with your own money is being hosed down by the court with the fullest possible support of ASIC.”

At the time of lodging the appeal, ASIC told Lawyers Weekly it was not necessarily opposed to a funder’s premium in principle, it was simply concerned with the division of the settlement sum and whether those who opted out of financing the proceedings were given enough notice that there would be a funder’s premium.

Levitt admitted that his firm’s approach to enlisting plaintiffs, including the advertising of the funding premium, was “less than perfect”, but he maintained that the firm’s shortcomings do not invalidate his clients’ entitlement to a reasonable premium for their investment in the class action.

ASIC hired the head of the Law Council of Australia, Michael Colbran QC, to argue its case. Levitt Robinson was represented by R Merkel QC. Allens advised the second respondent, Macquarie Bank, which was represented in court by John Sheahan SC.

Brisbane silk Douglas Campbell SC had previously acted for Levitt Robinson in the matter. Campbell told Lawyers Weekly in May that ASIC’s objections to the 35 per cent premium were not “unduly aggressive”.

Levitt, however, claimed self-funders should be afforded the same rights as litigation funders that can receive premiums of between 25 and 45 per cent. Last year, litigation funder IMF Australia recovered a 40 per cent ($60 million) cut of the $150 million that went to Maurice Blackburn clients in its class action against Centro.

Levitt said an appeal of the Full Federal Court decision may be on the cards, but he will first weigh up the best interests of his clients.

# Please note: This article has been amended. The initial publication wrongly said John Sheahan SC acted for Levitt Robinson

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Firm slams appeal decision in Storm case
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Scales of Justice
Dec 15 2017
Timing ‘critical’ in unusual contempt of court ruling
A recent case could have interesting implications for contempt of court rulings, according to a Ferr...
Dec 14 2017
International arbitration and business culture
Promoted by Maxwell Chambers. This article discusses the impact of international arbitration on t...
Papua New Guinea flag
Dec 14 2017
World-first mining case launched in PNG
Citizens of Papua New Guinea have launched landmark legal proceedings against the country’s govern...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...