The Federal Court of Australia\u27s Power to Terminate Properly Instituted Class Actions

The regime governing class actions in the Federal Court of Australia is unique, by international standards, as it does not require the formal authorisation of the Court before a proceeding may be brought and conducted as a class action. A class action may be commenced in the Federal Court as long as certain prerequisites are satisfied. Another unique aspect of this regime is that wide powers have been conferred upon the Court to terminate, as class actions, proceedings that have complied with the requirements for commencing a class action. It is the aim of this article to explore the conceptual and practical issues raised by the availability and exercise of these powers to discontinue properly commenced class actions. As part of this evaluation, the Canadian and United States class action regimes are extensively canvassed

The Federal Court of Australia\u27s Power to Terminate Properly Instituted Class Actions

The regime governing class actions in the Federal Court of Australia is unique, by international standards, as it does not require the formal authorisation of the Court before a proceeding may be brought and conducted as a class action. A class action may be commenced in the Federal Court as long as certain prerequisites are satisfied. Another unique aspect of this regime is that wide powers have been conferred upon the Court to terminate, as class actions, proceedings that have complied with the requirements for commencing a class action. It is the aim of this article to explore the conceptual and practical issues raised by the availability and exercise of these powers to discontinue properly commenced class actions. As part of this evaluation, the Canadian and United States class action regimes are extensively canvassed

The Federal Court of Australia\u27s Power to Terminate Properly Instituted Class Actions

The regime governing class actions in the Federal Court of Australia is unique, by international standards, as it does not require the formal authorisation of the Court before a proceeding may be brought and conducted as a class action. A class action may be commenced in the Federal Court as long as certain prerequisites are satisfied. Another unique aspect of this regime is that wide powers have been conferred upon the Court to terminate, as class actions, proceedings that have complied with the requirements for commencing a class action. It is the aim of this article to explore the conceptual and practical issues raised by the availability and exercise of these powers to discontinue properly commenced class actions. As part of this evaluation, the Canadian and United States class action regimes are extensively canvassed

TURNING THE SPOTLIGHT ON CLASS REPRESENTATIVES -EMPIRICAL INSIGHTS FROM DOWN UNDER

Ten months before Ontario became the first Canadian common law province to authorise American-style class actions, class actions became available in the Federal Court of Australia. In these two countries and in the United States, the named plaintiffs, commonly referred to as class representatives, are the only claimants formally in charge of the litigation, on the plaintiff side, whilst the outcome of class actions binds not only them and their opponents but also the claimants that they represent, the absent class members. And yet, to date, there have been no comprehensive studies of class representatives in these three countries. The aim of this article is to partly address this significant lacuna in the international legal literature by providing the findings of an empirical study, that the authors have undertaken, of the persons that acted as class representatives in the class actions that were filed in the first 17 years of the operation of the class action procedure in the Federal Court of Australia. It is hoped that this article will prompt Canadian scholars to undertake similar studies with respect to Canadian class representatives. Dix mois avant que l’Ontario devienne la première province de common law canadienne à autoriser les recours collectifs à l’américaine, la Cour fédérale d’Australie autorisait ceux-ci. Dans ces deux pays, ainsi qu’aux États-Unis, les demandeurs nommés, communément appelés représentants, sont les seuls demandeurs formellement mêlés au litige du côté de la partie demanderesse, tandis que l’issue des recours collectifs lie non seulement les représentants et leurs adversaires, mais aussi les demandeurs qu’ils représentent, c’est-à-dire les personnes inscrites au recours collectif qui sont absentes. Pourtant, il n’y a eu à ce jour aucune étude approfondie sur ces représentants de groupes dans ces trois pays. L’objet du présent article est de combler en partie cette importante lacune dans la littérature juridique internationale en fournissant les conclusions d’une étude empirique effectuée par les auteurs et portant sur les représentants dans le cadre des recours collectifs introduits dans les 17 premières années du régime des recours collectifs devant la Cour fédérale d’Australie. Il est à espérer que le présent article incitera les chercheurs canadiens à entreprendre de telles études en ce qui concerne les représentants de groupes canadiens

TURNING THE SPOTLIGHT ON CLASS REPRESENTATIVES -EMPIRICAL INSIGHTS FROM DOWN UNDER

Ten months before Ontario became the first Canadian common law province to authorise American-style class actions, class actions became available in the Federal Court of Australia. In these two countries and in the United States, the named plaintiffs, commonly referred to as class representatives, are the only claimants formally in charge of the litigation, on the plaintiff side, whilst the outcome of class actions binds not only them and their opponents but also the claimants that they represent, the absent class members. And yet, to date, there have been no comprehensive studies of class representatives in these three countries. The aim of this article is to partly address this significant lacuna in the international legal literature by providing the findings of an empirical study, that the authors have undertaken, of the persons that acted as class representatives in the class actions that were filed in the first 17 years of the operation of the class action procedure in the Federal Court of Australia. It is hoped that this article will prompt Canadian scholars to undertake similar studies with respect to Canadian class representatives. Dix mois avant que l’Ontario devienne la première province de common law canadienne à autoriser les recours collectifs à l’américaine, la Cour fédérale d’Australie autorisait ceux-ci. Dans ces deux pays, ainsi qu’aux États-Unis, les demandeurs nommés, communément appelés représentants, sont les seuls demandeurs formellement mêlés au litige du côté de la partie demanderesse, tandis que l’issue des recours collectifs lie non seulement les représentants et leurs adversaires, mais aussi les demandeurs qu’ils représentent, c’est-à-dire les personnes inscrites au recours collectif qui sont absentes. Pourtant, il n’y a eu à ce jour aucune étude approfondie sur ces représentants de groupes dans ces trois pays. L’objet du présent article est de combler en partie cette importante lacune dans la littérature juridique internationale en fournissant les conclusions d’une étude empirique effectuée par les auteurs et portant sur les représentants dans le cadre des recours collectifs introduits dans les 17 premières années du régime des recours collectifs devant la Cour fédérale d’Australie. Il est à espérer que le présent article incitera les chercheurs canadiens à entreprendre de telles études en ce qui concerne les représentants de groupes canadiens

TURNING THE SPOTLIGHT ON CLASS REPRESENTATIVES -EMPIRICAL INSIGHTS FROM DOWN UNDER

Ten months before Ontario became the first Canadian common law province to authorise American-style class actions, class actions became available in the Federal Court of Australia. In these two countries and in the United States, the named plaintiffs, commonly referred to as class representatives, are the only claimants formally in charge of the litigation, on the plaintiff side, whilst the outcome of class actions binds not only them and their opponents but also the claimants that they represent, the absent class members. And yet, to date, there have been no comprehensive studies of class representatives in these three countries. The aim of this article is to partly address this significant lacuna in the international legal literature by providing the findings of an empirical study, that the authors have undertaken, of the persons that acted as class representatives in the class actions that were filed in the first 17 years of the operation of the class action procedure in the Federal Court of Australia. It is hoped that this article will prompt Canadian scholars to undertake similar studies with respect to Canadian class representatives.Dix mois avant que l’Ontario devienne la première province de common law canadienne à autoriser les recours collectifs à l’américaine, la Cour fédérale d’Australie autorisait ceux-ci. Dans ces deux pays, ainsi qu’aux États-Unis, les demandeurs nommés, communément appelés représentants, sont les seuls demandeurs formellement mêlés au litige du côté de la partie demanderesse, tandis que l’issue des recours collectifs lie non seulement les représentants et leurs adversaires, mais aussi les demandeurs qu’ils représentent, c’est-à-dire les personnes inscrites au recours collectif qui sont absentes. Pourtant, il n’y a eu à ce jour aucune étude approfondie sur ces représentants de groupes dans ces trois pays. L’objet du présent article est de combler en partie cette importante lacune dans la littérature juridique internationale en fournissant les conclusions d’une étude empirique effectuée par les auteurs et portant sur les représentants dans le cadre des recours collectifs introduits dans les 17 premières années du régime des recours collectifs devant la Cour fédérale d’Australie. Il est à espérer que le présent article incitera les chercheurs canadiens à entreprendre de telles études en ce qui concerne les représentants de groupes canadiens

The dawning of the age of the litigation entrepreneur

In the United States, claims aggregators have appeared as a new form of litigation entrepreneur. Claims aggregators collect claims from nominal claim holders then prosecute the claims in a single action. As such they constitute a potential form of competition for class action attorneys and litigation financiers as providers of access to justice. This article examines claims aggregation in three common law jurisdictions--England, Australia and the United States--and compares claims aggregation with another well established form of entrepreneurial litigation, the class action. Legal and financial impediments to the growth in claims aggregation are also considered.