3 years ago
LIBERALS HUMILIATED ON FIRST DAY OF CLASS ACTIONS INQUIRY
MARK DREYFUS QC MP
The Liberal Party has been humiliated at the first day of its class actions inquiry, with a key submission from its own think tank revealed to have misrepresented a Federal Court judge and to have used data disowned by its source.
In its submission to the inquiry, the Liberal Party’s “think tank”, the Menzies Research Centre, asserted that in 2019 class members of litigation funded class actions only received 39 per cent of settlement proceeds.
The 39 per cent figure has been widely cited in media including in The Australian and on Sky News, as evidence for why a crackdown on litigation funding and class actions was needed.
However, in answer to questions from Labor MP Steve Georganas, it has now been revealed that the figure came from a PowerPoint presentation at a training day for law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, that was not authorised for use elsewhere as it was based on incomplete information.
The repudiation of one of the key pillars justifying the attack on class actions came just hours after the Menzies Research Centre was also exposed as having misquoted and misrepresented a Federal Court judge.
In the very first line of the Menzies Research Centre’s submission, the Centre purported to quote from a 5 June 2020 judgment by Justice Lee in relation to one of the PFAS class actions. The Centre asserted that Justice Lee had said: “the phrase access to justice is often misused by litigation funders to justify what, at bottom, is a commercial endeavour to make money out of the conduct of litigation”.
However, at today’s hearing, James Mathias – the Chief of Staff for the Menzies Research Centre and the author of the Centre’s submission – admitted to Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill that he had never even read the judgment and was unaware that the quote was not from Justice Lee’s 37 page judgment but from a report in legal magazine Lawyerly.
O’NEILL: Have you read Justice Lee's full judgment from the 5th of June 2020 where His Honour approved the settlement of one of the PFAS class actions?
MATHIAS: No, I haven't read the full judgment.
O’NEILL: So you've quoted Justice Lee but you have not read his judgment
MATHIAS: Judgments are very long, some hundreds of pages.
…
FALINSKI: Mr. Matthias can I ask, start to cover this off “the phrase access to justice is often misused by litigation funders to justify what, at bottom, is a commercial endeavour to make money out of the conduct of litigation”. Did Justice Lee say that yes or no?
MATHIAS: I believe he did. Yes.
FALINSKI: And when?
MATHIAS:
FALINSKI: Mr Mathias? Do you know where he said that?
MATHIAS: I'll have to take that on notice Mr Falinski.
Contrary to the misleading impression that the Menzies Research Centre sought to convey in its submission, a full reading of Justice Lee’s judgment made favourable comments about litigation funding and held that the outcome in the PFAS class action was a very good one.
Today’s evidence confirms what Labor has been saying since day one: this inquiry is a shameless move towards denying justice and fair compensation to ordinary Australians. The Liberal Party is not interested in the truth about class actions and has no interest in engaging in this debate honestly and in good faith.
The truth is that litigation funding and class actions provide a vital path to justice for Australians trying to uphold and enforce their rights.
Labor will always support sensible law reform.
But Labor will never support a Government stacking the deck against ordinary Australians trying to uphold their rights in court.
In its submission to the inquiry, the Liberal Party’s “think tank”, the Menzies Research Centre, asserted that in 2019 class members of litigation funded class actions only received 39 per cent of settlement proceeds.
The 39 per cent figure has been widely cited in media including in The Australian and on Sky News, as evidence for why a crackdown on litigation funding and class actions was needed.
However, in answer to questions from Labor MP Steve Georganas, it has now been revealed that the figure came from a PowerPoint presentation at a training day for law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, that was not authorised for use elsewhere as it was based on incomplete information.
The repudiation of one of the key pillars justifying the attack on class actions came just hours after the Menzies Research Centre was also exposed as having misquoted and misrepresented a Federal Court judge.
In the very first line of the Menzies Research Centre’s submission, the Centre purported to quote from a 5 June 2020 judgment by Justice Lee in relation to one of the PFAS class actions. The Centre asserted that Justice Lee had said: “the phrase access to justice is often misused by litigation funders to justify what, at bottom, is a commercial endeavour to make money out of the conduct of litigation”.
However, at today’s hearing, James Mathias – the Chief of Staff for the Menzies Research Centre and the author of the Centre’s submission – admitted to Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill that he had never even read the judgment and was unaware that the quote was not from Justice Lee’s 37 page judgment but from a report in legal magazine Lawyerly.
O’NEILL: Have you read Justice Lee's full judgment from the 5th of June 2020 where His Honour approved the settlement of one of the PFAS class actions?
MATHIAS: No, I haven't read the full judgment.
O’NEILL: So you've quoted Justice Lee but you have not read his judgment
MATHIAS: Judgments are very long, some hundreds of pages.
…
FALINSKI: Mr. Matthias can I ask, start to cover this off “the phrase access to justice is often misused by litigation funders to justify what, at bottom, is a commercial endeavour to make money out of the conduct of litigation”. Did Justice Lee say that yes or no?
MATHIAS: I believe he did. Yes.
FALINSKI: And when?
MATHIAS:
FALINSKI: Mr Mathias? Do you know where he said that?
MATHIAS: I'll have to take that on notice Mr Falinski.
Contrary to the misleading impression that the Menzies Research Centre sought to convey in its submission, a full reading of Justice Lee’s judgment made favourable comments about litigation funding and held that the outcome in the PFAS class action was a very good one.
Today’s evidence confirms what Labor has been saying since day one: this inquiry is a shameless move towards denying justice and fair compensation to ordinary Australians. The Liberal Party is not interested in the truth about class actions and has no interest in engaging in this debate honestly and in good faith.
The truth is that litigation funding and class actions provide a vital path to justice for Australians trying to uphold and enforce their rights.
Labor will always support sensible law reform.
But Labor will never support a Government stacking the deck against ordinary Australians trying to uphold their rights in court.