Ghee v BT Funds Management Limited
Case
•
[2023] FCA 1553
•7 December 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Ghee v BT Funds Management Limited [2023] FCA 1553
[2023] FCA 1553
7 December 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ghee v BT Funds Management Limited involved an application by the representative plaintiff, Ms Ghee, for court approval of a proposed settlement under section 33V(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The case revolved around the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement for the group members, as well as the appropriateness of a common fund order under section 33V(2). The primary legal issues were whether the settlement was fair and reasonable for the group members, and whether the proposed litigation funding charges were reasonable and proportionate. Additionally, the court had to determine the relevance of after-the-event insurance to the assessment of these charges.
The court assessed the settlement's fairness and reasonableness by considering the nature of the claim, the risks involved, and the proposed funding terms. It was noted that Therium, the litigation funder, required a higher commission return if it could not recover its after-the-event insurance costs. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the complexities and risks of the claim, as well as the terms negotiated between Therium and Slater & Gordon, the law firm representing the group members. The court also considered the proposed litigation funding charges and found them to be reasonable and proportionate, given the need for after-the-event insurance and the overall context of the litigation.
The court approved the proposed settlement and the settlement distribution scheme, authorising the representative plaintiff to act on behalf of the group members. It also appointed Slater & Gordon as the Settlement Administrator and approved various distributions from the settlement fund, including the funder's commission, reimbursements, and administrative costs. The court further directed that the settlement administrator could apply for additional administrative costs and ordered that the proceeding be dismissed with no order as to costs once the settlement distribution was complete.
The court assessed the settlement's fairness and reasonableness by considering the nature of the claim, the risks involved, and the proposed funding terms. It was noted that Therium, the litigation funder, required a higher commission return if it could not recover its after-the-event insurance costs. The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the complexities and risks of the claim, as well as the terms negotiated between Therium and Slater & Gordon, the law firm representing the group members. The court also considered the proposed litigation funding charges and found them to be reasonable and proportionate, given the need for after-the-event insurance and the overall context of the litigation.
The court approved the proposed settlement and the settlement distribution scheme, authorising the representative plaintiff to act on behalf of the group members. It also appointed Slater & Gordon as the Settlement Administrator and approved various distributions from the settlement fund, including the funder's commission, reimbursements, and administrative costs. The court further directed that the settlement administrator could apply for additional administrative costs and ordered that the proceeding be dismissed with no order as to costs once the settlement distribution was complete.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Class Actions
-
Representative Proceedings
-
Settlement Approval
-
Specific Performance
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fuller & Anor v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & Anor (Settlement Approval) [2025] VSC 160
Cases Citing This Decision
20
Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd; Ernst & Young (a firm) v R&B Investments Pty Ltd; Shand v R&B Investments Pty Ltd
[2025] HCA 28
McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia
[2025] FCA 380
Cases Cited
42
Statutory Material Cited
2
Webb v GetSwift Limited (No 7)
[2023] FCA 90
Dyczynski v Gibson
[2020] FCAFC 120