First, no member of the group has the means to challenge an independent cost expert. The Tribunal receives only expert reports commissioned by the applicant (in this regard from the lawyers) to request the authorization of the lawyer`s fees. Second, even if the fees are higher than what is allowed by the Supreme Court scale, it can be considered that the class members accepted these fees by receiving a resator with counsel. However, in a class action, lawyers set their own costs and class members have little ability to negotiate.46 A contingency or contingency fee agreement is usually a “No Win, No Fee” agreement, which provides that the attorney is only paid if the case is successful. In some cases, it is possible to have a “No Win, Lower Fee” agreement, but this is less common in the context of class actions. 15 For example, in the Kilmore East/Kinglake and Murrindindi/Marysville class actions, the transaction allocation fees were deducted from the interest earned during the distribution period, before the comparative amounts to be paid to class members were reduced: Model 13 (Maurice Blackburn Lawyers). 67 For example, in a class action lawsuit currently pending before the Federal Court, the application for a common fund decision suggested that class members who had not signed a financing agreement would pay a 30% financing tax after the decision. Class members who entered into a financing agreement paid a 20% financing fee. These two amounts were declared fixed by the court: Capic vs. Ford Motor Company of Australia, Bundesgericht NSD 724 of 2016. ATE insurance is often taken out in combination with a CFA or a “no win, no fee” DBA between the party and his lawyer, so that in case of loss of business, he is not held responsible for his own legal fees (due to the CFA or DBA) or for his own withdrawals or possible liabilities in case of injurious costs (due to the ATE policy).
Increasingly, ATE insurance is also offered to cover part of the insured`s own legal costs in the event of loss of business, in addition to the traditional coverage for its own harmful payments and costs. 1 Matthews/SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (No. 9)  VSC 671 (9 December 2013)  (Derham AsJ). Fee orders cannot be imposed on class members unless they relate to individual claims or sub-groups: Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 33ZD (b). However, what does not vary from case to case is that the legal costs and risk inherent in a class action are borne by the representative applicant and not by the individual members of the group. If you are not a representative plaintiff, you do not run the risk of incurholding the defendant`s legal costs if the case does not succeed. 44 If the law firm leaves sound internal procedures for verifying court fees, unreasonable costs must be avoided independently of or before verification by an independent cost expert: Model 13 (Maurice Blackburn Lawyers). Similarly, a party using third-party funds is not obliged to inform the opponent of the existence or conditions of the financing agreement.
However, the court may order a party to disclose the identity of those who are funding the dispute so that the opponent can verify whether he can claim security for the costs it bears against it. This power has been exercised in class disputes (see here). . . .