Hancock liquidator of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 622

Hancock liquidator of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 622

Applicants, as parties claiming security for costs and being sued in related proceedings, have a sufficient interest to seek variation of suppression orders; portions of litigation funding agreements relevant to their application for security for costs must be disclosed, including the identity of funder and terms relating to costs, but suppression can remain over confidential legal strategy and commercial information.

Parties
Plaintiff (respondent on the Interlocutory Application): Geoffrey Trent Hancock as liquidator of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) ACN 158 621 937; First Applicant on the Interlocutory Application: Lauvan Pty Ltd; Second Applicant on the Interlocutory Application: Mittabell Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Ongoing Proceedings / Application to Vary or Set Aside Prior Suppression/confidentiality Orders
Outcome
Suppression order varied; disclosure of relevant portions of funding agreement to applicants ordered; plaintiff ordered to pay applicants' costs; procedural directions for final orders and confidentiality undertakings issued.
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Litigation Funding, Security for Costs, Confidentiality, Standing
Practice and Procedure Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Suppression Orders Litigation Funding Security for Costs Confidentiality Standing

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Trent Hancock as liquidator of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) ACN 158 621 937

Plaintiff (respondent on the Interlocutory Application)

Lauvan Pty Ltd

First Applicant on the Interlocutory Application

Mittabell Pty Ltd

Second Applicant on the Interlocutory Application

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Ongoing Proceedings / Application to Vary or Set Aside Prior Suppression/confidentiality Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have standing to seek variation of suppression orders
  2. 2 Whether suppression/confidentiality orders over litigation funding agreement should be varied or set aside
  3. 3 Which parts of the funding agreement should be disclosed or suppressed

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants, as parties claiming security for costs and being sued in related proceedings, have a sufficient interest to seek variation of suppression orders; portions of litigation funding agreements relevant to their application for security for costs must be disclosed, including the identity of funder and terms relating to costs, but suppression can remain over confidential legal strategy and commercial information.

Court Disposition

Suppression order varied; disclosure of relevant portions of funding agreement to applicants ordered; plaintiff ordered to pay applicants' costs; procedural directions for final orders and confidentiality undertakings issued.

Orders

  • Suppression on Court file of affidavit sworn 24 January 2019 and 'Exhibit GTH-2' removed.
  • By close of business on 6 May 2019, parties to agree and implement orders as to confidentiality giving effect to reasons for judgment.