← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case third party fundingcompetition and regulation

Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd

(2009) 180 FCR 11
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtFederal Court of Australia (Full Court)
Year2009
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Litigation funding agreements are not managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act; the funded litigation is the recovery vehicle and the funder provides a financial service.

Key Principle

The FCA held that litigation funding agreements are not managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act; the funded litigation is the vehicle for recovery, and the funder provides a financial service.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v Int...