LCM Litigation Fund Pty Ltd v Coope [2016] NSWSC 1221
LCM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Coope breached the undertaking. Properly construed in context, the word "client" in paragraph 9 of the undertaking bore its ordinary meaning, not the extended employment contract definition of "Client", so the allegation concerning Mr Duncan failed. Although Mr Farnsworth was a client of LCM and the two Vannin Capital emails objectively constituted solicitation, the undertaking applied only where Mr Coope had direct dealings with, or performed work for, the client on behalf of LCM within the relevant two year period. The evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Coope had such direct dealings with Mr Farnsworth on behalf of...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 September 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt of Court Proceedings in the Equity Jurisdiction / Principal Judgment Determining Whether the Defendant Committed the Alleged Contempt; Sanction to Be Considered Separately Only If Contempt Found
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's amended summons and amended statement of charge dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['construction of Undertaking to the Court' 'non Solicitation Undertaking' 'meaning of Client in Undertaking' 'civil Contempt Burden of Proof' 'direct Dealings With Client' 'solicitation of Litigation Funding Clients']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings in the Equity Jurisdiction / Principal Judgment Determining Whether the Defendant Committed the Alleged Contempt; Sanction to Be Considered Separately Only If Contempt Found
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the word "client" in the undertaking was intended to have its ordinary meaning or the meaning of "Client" as defined in the employment agreement.' 'Whether Mr Duncan was a client of LCM for the purposes of the undertaking.' 'Whether Mr Farnsworth was a client of LCM for the purposes of the undertaking.' 'Whether the emails sent by Mr Coope constituted solicitation, canvassing or an approach to perform work for a client.' 'Whether Mr Coope had direct dealings with, or performed work for, Mr Farnsworth within the relevant two year period on behalf of LCM.' 'Whether LCM proved beyond reasonable doubt that the undertaking was breached.']
Ratio Decidendi
LCM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Coope breached the undertaking. Properly construed in context, the word "client" in paragraph 9 of the undertaking bore its ordinary meaning, not the extended employment contract definition of "Client", so the allegation concerning Mr Duncan failed. Although Mr Farnsworth was a client of LCM and the two Vannin Capital emails objectively constituted solicitation, the undertaking applied only where Mr Coope had direct dealings with, or performed work for, the client on behalf of LCM within the relevant two year period. The evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Coope had such direct dealings with Mr Farnsworth on behalf of...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's amended summons and amended statement of charge dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Orders
- ["Order that the plaintiff's Amended Summons and Amended Statement of Charge be dismissed." "Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings." 'Order that the exhibits and any documents produced on subpoena or notice to produce may be returned forthwith in accordance with the Rules.']
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