Murphy Operator v Gladstone Ports Corporation (No 4)

The case of Murphy Operator v Gladstone Ports Corporation (No 4) involved a dispute regarding litigation funding agreements in the context of a proposed class action. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the funding agreements were not unenforceable by reason of maintenance, champerty, or public policy. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the torts of maintenance and champerty still exist as part of the common law of Australia, and whether section 103K(2)(b) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) authorised the funding agreements. The court also needed to determine if the funding agreements were lawful and enforceable under general contractual principles, specifically if they were contrary to public policy.

The court found that the funding agreements did not involve unlawful conduct or purpose and were not prejudicial to the administration of justice. The agreements were consistent with the public policy outlined in Part 13A of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld). The court held that the agreements were not unenforceable by reason of maintenance, champerty, or public policy. Additionally, the court ruled that the invoices tendered by the defendant were inadmissible as evidence of post-contractual conduct. The court concluded that the funding agreements were lawful and enforceable, making the necessary declarations that they were not unenforceable.