A Singapore-based litigation funder is going to get another chance to argue that it does not provide a financial product and as such does not need an Australian Financial Services License ("AFSL").  On 28 October 2011, the High Court of Australia granted leave to International Litigation Partners Pty Ltd to appeal the NSW Court of Appeal’s decision, which found that litigation funders require an AFSL because they are in the business of managing financial risk.  

The background to the case was that when the funder sought to enforce the funding agreement to obtain the funding fee and an early termination fee, the other party argued that as the funder was an unlicensed provider of financial services, the agreement was void and unenforceable.  Hammerschlag J of the Supreme Court decided in favour of the funder, finding that litigation funding was not a financial product.  The Court of Appeal, by majority, overturned Hammerschlag J’s decision.

In granting leave, Gummow J of the High Court noted that "this question of licensing litigation funders has to be an important one".  One issue that will occupy the judges will be how to characterise the main object of the funding itself – is it to manage financial risk or is to allow the litigation to go forward?  See International Litigation Partners Pte Ltd v Chameleon Mining NL & Ors [2011] HCATrans296.  Watch this space, I will report on the case as it progresses.

This information is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.

Posted by Kerry Hogan-Ross on Wednesday 09 Nov 2011

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed