Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2017] NSWCA 200 Hearing dates: 21 March 2017 Decision date: 11 August 2017 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Simpson JA at [2]; Emmett AJA at [68] Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed;
(2) Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.Catchwords: CONTEMPT – breach of undertaking to court – construction of undertaking – meaning of “direct dealing” Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Advan Investments Pty Ltd v Dean Gleeson Motor Sales Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 201
Coope v LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 37
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 333 ALR 384; [2016] HCA 26
LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2016] NSWSC 1221
LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope; Coope v LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 992
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2012) 224 A Crim R 94; [2012] NSWCA 262
National Australia Bank Ltd v Juric [2001] VSC 375
Wyszenko v Wyszenko [2012] NSWSC 732Category: Principal judgment Parties: LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Patrick Mark Coope (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A J Sullivan QC/T E O’Brien (Appellant)
A J L Bannon SC/Y Shariff (Respondent)
Piper Alderman (Appellant)
Esplins (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/271596 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2016] NSWSC 1221
- Date of Decision:
- 1 September 2016
- Before:
- Robb J
- File Number(s):
- 2015/359582
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant (“LCM”) is a litigation funding company. From 1997 until 31 March 2015, the respondent was involved with the company, and was engaged as one of two joint managing directors. The respondent’s employment was terminated on 31 March 2015, and proceedings were commenced seeking orders restraining the respondent for 12 months from soliciting, canvassing, approaching or accepting any approach from or performing any work for (or attempting to do any of the foregoing) any client (of LCM) with whom he had had direct dealings, or for whom he had performed work, within the two years prior to the date of termination of his employment. Interlocutory orders to this effect were made in the course of those proceedings.
The respondent was also a director of a company called Small Claims Funding Pty Ltd (“SCF”) which was the trustee of an entity called the Small Claims Fund, owned by entities associated with the respondent or by another individual involved with LCM. SCF was also a litigation funding company, funding smaller claims. The respondent held email addresses both with LCM and SCF.
In late 2013 Mr Rosenblatt, a solicitor acting for Mr Farnsworth, the liquidator of Moore Australasia Pty Ltd (in liquidation), contacted the respondent at his SCF email address and provided details of proposed litigation. The email asked whether SCF would be interested in funding the litigation. Over a period of weeks Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 200
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant's conduct constituted a breach of its undertaking to the court, specifically in relation to the meaning and scope of "direct dealing" with certain parties.
The Court of Appeal considered the nature of undertakings given to the court and the principles of contractual construction as applied to such undertakings. It analysed the specific wording of the undertaking and the factual circumstances surrounding the appellant's actions. The court concluded that the appellant's conduct did indeed fall within the scope of the undertaking, thereby constituting a breach.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed;
(2) Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.