Kain v R&B Investments Pty LtdErnst & Young (a firm) v R&B Investments Pty LtdShand v R&B Investments Pty LtdCitation:[2025] HCA 28Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:06 Aug 2025Case Number:S146/2024, S144/2024 , S143/2024Read more

Neither s 33V nor s 33Z of the Federal Court of Australia Act empowers the Federal Court to make a common fund order at settlement or judgment in favour of a law practice, as such an order would contravene s 183 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW).

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Applicant: Kain; Respondent: R&B Investments Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 August 2025
Procedural Posture: Representative Proceeding / Judgment
Outcome: application dismissed
Legal Topics: Common Fund Orders, Costs Agreements, Distribution of Settlement Funds, Regulation of Legal Profession

Practice and Procedure Legal Profession Regulation Common Fund Orders Costs Agreements Distribution of Settlement Funds Regulation of Legal Profession

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Kain

Applicant

R&B Investments Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether s 33V or s 33Z of Federal Court of Australia Act empowers Federal Court to make common fund order at settlement or judgment in favour of law practice

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

No common fund order to be made in favour of law practice at settlement or judgment.
Costs agreements must comply with Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) s 183.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.