Login
Court shuts down class action against law firm for allegedly inadequate work
A Melbourne law firm will not have to face a class action brought on behalf of about 700 group members who alleged negligent advice, but it could still face a raft of individual proceedings.
Naomi Neilson
Justice Peter Gorton of the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to allow group proceedings filed by Rightside Legal to proceed against Waller Legal, a Melbourne-based compensation law firm that specialises in child sexual abuse within institutions.
The group proceedings had been made up of about 700 potential group members – 61 of which were clients of Rightside Legal – who alleged Waller Legal did not provide adequate advice or work in respect of claims for damages over loss of earning capacity.
Specifically, the group members alleged that between July 2015 and September 2023, Waller Legal resolved their claims without proceedings being commenced or, at any rate, prior to judgment.
Justice Gorton said the matter could not continue as a group proceeding because each claim for damages “is distinct and will depend on a detailed assessment of the actual advice that each group member was given assessed in the legal context … at the time”.
“The hearing and determination of the proposed common questions would involve significant time and expense but would not, in my judgment, appreciably shorten the process of evaluating each group member’s claim or lead to savings of any real significance.
“Accordingly, this group proceeding will not provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims of group members, and it is in the interests of justice that it no longer continue as a group proceeding,” Justice Gorton said in his written reasons.
Each group member would have given and received advice from Waller Legal at different times, and the strength of such communication would have needed to be carefully scrutinised.
It would have included examining the particular circumstances of each abuse, the relationship with the particular alleged abuser and institution, and any knowledge the institution may have had.
“It is difficult to see how there are common questions of fact of law that may be determined in the lead plaintiff’s proceeding that would or could apply across the claims of the group members, or a sufficient number of them, for the group proceeding to be an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims of the group members.
“It is to be recalled that the group is not limited to those persons who had claims in respect of one particular abuser, or those persons who had claims against one particular institution, but includes all the clients of the defendants who settled their claims, regardless of the identity of the abuser or the identity of the institution or the nature or amount of the settlement,” Justice Gorton said.
Justice Gorton acknowledged that some members may have their claim against Waller Legal barred, and others may receive less in penalty interests than they otherwise might have.
He also noted that at least some of the group members would not bring their own proceeding, “either because they never had a good claim for loss of earning capacity against the institution from who they claimed damages, or, for one reason or another, they do not wish to sue Waller Legal or turn their mind to so doing”.
In those circumstances, Justice Gorton said it would be “somewhat artificial” to compare the maintenance of the group proceedings with the commencement of “700 separate proceedings”.
The case is Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42 (17 February 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
