The former solicitor behind a litigation funder has lost his bid to revive costly claims against the plaintiffs of a WestConnex tunnel class action.
The NSW Supreme Court summarily dismissed proceedings brought by Litigation Fund WCX against Rosario and Antonia Aversas, the plaintiffs of a class action against Transport for NSW over its compulsory acquisition of land for the WestConnex project.
Litigation Fund and its sole director, former solicitor Robert Coshott, alleged the Aversas breached purported agreements to gain approval before changing solicitors and to keep it informed of the case’s status.
The Supreme Court was satisfied that the allegations contained in the funder’s statement of claim were “essentially the same” as those advanced and dismissed by a registrar in common law proceedings. The funder did not seek to review the registrar’s decision.
Justice Anthony McGrath said the husband and wife “have now been vexed with three sets of proceedings … involving the very same subject matter”, being the agreements alleged to have been entered into when Litigation Fund advanced the funding for the class action.
“It would be both unjustifiably oppressive to the Aversas and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to allow Litigation Fund to bring claims now that it has already been prevented from bringing in the common law proceedings,” Justice McGrath added.
The Coshott Family, led by Coshott, first initiated proceedings in the Local Court in September 2021, but it was dismissed on the basis it failed to prove it had advanced $50,000 to the class action.
Three days later, Litigation Fund brought the common law proceedings in the Supreme Court, which claimed the Aversas were entitled to pay the funder $350,000 under each of the agreements, and a further amount of $150,000 alleged to have been paid under the agreements.
The funder sought leave to file a further amended statement of claim in May 2024 – over a year after the Aversas filed a defence – in which it alleged the Aversas were liable for money received, and required to provide restitution for funds of which they were unjustly enriched.
The registrar dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments to be “embarrassing and not in the interests of justice”.
Litigation Fund commenced the most recent Supreme Court proceedings in August with a claim that the Aversas were unjustly enriched at its expense and sought restitution of the monies provided to them.
Justice McGrath said the principles in relation to abuse and process “demand that I summarily dismiss these proceedings”.
He added that the “timely and efficient administration of justice” required the proceedings to be dismissed.
“I have a high degree of certainty that it is an abuse of process for Litigation Fund to now seek to run claims in these proceedings which should have been brought in the Common Law proceedings in sufficient time that would not have caused them to be rejected.
“The court should not spend any further public resources on Litigation Fund’s various permutations of its claims in an unnecessarily protracted dispute, and the Aversas should not be further troubled with yet more time and expense in defending them,” Justice McGrath said.
The case: Litigation Fund WCX Pty Ltd v Aversa [2025] NSWSC 1301.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
