Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited v Murphy Operator Pty Ltd

Case

[2020] QCA 250

13 November 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited v Murphy Operator Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 250 [2020] QCA 250 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited (GPC) appealed against an order that required it to provide security for costs in a class action brought by the respondents. The class action was brought by the respondents, who are plaintiffs in a class action, on behalf of themselves and others, against GPC. The respondents allege that GPC's negligence and failure to comply with statutory obligations resulted in the pollution of the waters surrounding the port of Gladstone and a loss of profits. The fourth respondent, the Funder, agreed to fund the class action. The respondents' solicitors entered into several agreements with the Members of the class actions and the Funder. GPC sought an order that the respondents provide security for costs, arguing that the funding agreement between the claimants and the Funder was champertous and unenforceable. The learned judge did not decide this question of law. The respondents then sought an order joining the Funder as a respondent to the application and also sought a declaration that the Representative agreement and the Member agreement were "not, by reason of maintenance, champerty or public policy, unenforceable". The respondents sought an order by the learned judge to refer the question to the Court of Appeal for its "opinion" pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 483(2).

The legal issues before the court were whether the funding agreements were champertous and whether they conferred upon the Funder the practical control of the litigation. The court considered the nature of the agreements and the circumstances in which they were entered into. The court found that the agreements were not champertous because they did not confer upon the Funder the practical control of the litigation. The court also found that the agreements did not contravene public policy. The court held that the agreements were not champertous and did not confer upon the Funder the practical control of the litigation. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Negligence

  • Unconscionable Conduct

  • Abuse of Process

  • Restitution

  • Compensatory Damages