Seeing past the US bogey - Lessons from Australia on the funding of class actions

Vince Morabito, Vicki Waye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The bogey of US style actions has dominated public thinking and policy formulation regarding the design of collective redress mechanisms in the United Kingdom. As a result, the UK Government has chosen a sector-by-sector approach rather than a generic class action regime. The spectre of US-style litigation has also been influential in the drafting of the costs provisions for the country’s first sector-specific opt out class action regime governing class actions filed before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the debate as to the most satisfactory means of addressing the costs and funding of class actions (whether brought pursuant to a generic class action regime or regimes in specific sectors or industries only) by providing an evaluation of this dimension of Australia’s federal class action regime which has been in operation for over 24 years.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-243
Number of pages31
JournalCivil Justice Quarterly
Volume36
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 10 Mar 2017

Cite this

@article{71af3cc855d9441a944f3f17907ff2e1,
title = "Seeing past the US bogey - Lessons from Australia on the funding of class actions",
abstract = "The bogey of US style actions has dominated public thinking and policy formulation regarding the design of collective redress mechanisms in the United Kingdom. As a result, the UK Government has chosen a sector-by-sector approach rather than a generic class action regime. The spectre of US-style litigation has also been influential in the drafting of the costs provisions for the country’s first sector-specific opt out class action regime governing class actions filed before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the debate as to the most satisfactory means of addressing the costs and funding of class actions (whether brought pursuant to a generic class action regime or regimes in specific sectors or industries only) by providing an evaluation of this dimension of Australia’s federal class action regime which has been in operation for over 24 years.",
author = "Vince Morabito and Vicki Waye",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "213--243",
journal = "Civil Justice Quarterly",
issn = "0261-9261",
publisher = "Sweet & Maxwell",
number = "2",

}

Seeing past the US bogey - Lessons from Australia on the funding of class actions. / Morabito, Vince; Waye, Vicki.

In: Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, 10.03.2017, p. 213-243.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seeing past the US bogey - Lessons from Australia on the funding of class actions

AU - Morabito, Vince

AU - Waye, Vicki

PY - 2017/3/10

Y1 - 2017/3/10

N2 - The bogey of US style actions has dominated public thinking and policy formulation regarding the design of collective redress mechanisms in the United Kingdom. As a result, the UK Government has chosen a sector-by-sector approach rather than a generic class action regime. The spectre of US-style litigation has also been influential in the drafting of the costs provisions for the country’s first sector-specific opt out class action regime governing class actions filed before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the debate as to the most satisfactory means of addressing the costs and funding of class actions (whether brought pursuant to a generic class action regime or regimes in specific sectors or industries only) by providing an evaluation of this dimension of Australia’s federal class action regime which has been in operation for over 24 years.

AB - The bogey of US style actions has dominated public thinking and policy formulation regarding the design of collective redress mechanisms in the United Kingdom. As a result, the UK Government has chosen a sector-by-sector approach rather than a generic class action regime. The spectre of US-style litigation has also been influential in the drafting of the costs provisions for the country’s first sector-specific opt out class action regime governing class actions filed before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the debate as to the most satisfactory means of addressing the costs and funding of class actions (whether brought pursuant to a generic class action regime or regimes in specific sectors or industries only) by providing an evaluation of this dimension of Australia’s federal class action regime which has been in operation for over 24 years.

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 213

EP - 243

JO - Civil Justice Quarterly

JF - Civil Justice Quarterly

SN - 0261-9261

IS - 2

ER -