LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2017] NSWCA 200
Passive receipt of a funding application and the execution of a funding agreement did not constitute 'direct dealings' as required by the undertaking. The evidence did not establish that any relevant dealings with the client (Mr Farnsworth) were done by the respondent in his capacity as an officer of LCM, but rather as an officer of SCF. Accordingly, contempt was not made out.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['breach of Undertaking' 'construction of Employment Restraint' 'direct Dealings' 'solicitation of Clients' 'litigation Funding']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the respondent had 'direct dealings' with a client of the appellant within the meaning of an undertaking to the court" "Whether passive receipt of a funding application or execution of a funding agreement constituted 'direct dealings'" 'Whether communications constituted breach of an undertaking restraining solicitation, canvassing, or approaching clients']
Ratio Decidendi
Passive receipt of a funding application and the execution of a funding agreement did not constitute 'direct dealings' as required by the undertaking. The evidence did not establish that any relevant dealings with the client (Mr Farnsworth) were done by the respondent in his capacity as an officer of LCM, but rather as an officer of SCF. Accordingly, contempt was not made out.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment