Caason Investments Pty Limited v Cao (No 3) [2020] FCA 91

Caason Investments Pty Limited v Cao (No 3) [2020] FCA 91

Applicants failed to properly particularise and substantiate large claims for reimbursement from the settlement fund; only reasonable and proportionate costs supported by evidence were allowed. The Court approved partial reimbursement for certain legal and accounting costs, but dismissed overly broad or ill-founded claims. Leave to file certain interlocutory applications out of time was refused due to serious non-compliance and repeated delays. Class members' interests in fair and efficient distribution were prioritised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings / Post Settlement Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applicants' interlocutory application allowed in part; certain costs approved for payment; application otherwise dismissed; leave to file out-of-time application refused; Scheme Administrator's costs approved.
Legal Topics
['class Actions' 'settlement Approval' 'costs' 'funding Agreements' 'gst Refunds' 'case Management' 'guillotine Orders']
['commercial Law' 'corporations Law' 'corporate Insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['class Actions' 'settlement Approval' 'costs' 'funding Agreements' 'gst Refunds' 'case Management' 'guillotine Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceedings / Post Settlement Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Applicants' entitlement to reimbursement of costs from settlement fund" "Applicants' entitlement to further reimbursement payment" 'Entitlement to claim legal, accounting and administrative costs for GST Refunds Issue' 'Whether leave should be granted to file application against litigation funder outside time limit' 'Application for costs by Scheme Administrator']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants failed to properly particularise and substantiate large claims for reimbursement from the settlement fund; only reasonable and proportionate costs supported by evidence were allowed. The Court approved partial reimbursement for certain legal and accounting costs, but dismissed overly broad or ill-founded claims. Leave to file certain interlocutory applications out of time was refused due to serious non-compliance and repeated delays. Class members' interests in fair and efficient distribution were prioritised.

Court Disposition

Applicants' interlocutory application allowed in part; certain costs approved for payment; application otherwise dismissed; leave to file out-of-time application refused; Scheme Administrator's costs approved.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted nunc pro tunc for Mr Timothy Burke to appear for Second Applicant.' 'Order 11(b) of Orders dated 6 December 2017 stayed; Order 11(a) remains.' 'Costs of $19,224.69 for application for approval of Representative Costs approved and to be paid by Scheme Administrator to applicants.' 'Amount of...