Book contents
- Reviews
- Class Actions and Government
- Class Actions and Government
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Summary of Contents
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Abbreviations
- Notes on Mode of Citation
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Preparing a Path to the Stadium
- Part II As a Participant in the Match
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2020
Book contents
- Reviews
- Class Actions and Government
- Class Actions and Government
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Summary of Contents
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Abbreviations
- Notes on Mode of Citation
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Preparing a Path to the Stadium
- Part II As a Participant in the Match
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Class Actions and Government , pp. 375 - 396Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Primary Sources
Alder, J and Syrett, K, Constitutional and Administrative Law (11th edn, Palgrave Master Series, 2017)Google Scholar
Allsop, (The Hon Justice James), An Introduction to the Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Judicial Scholarship, 1 October 2007)Google Scholar
Berryman, J, Class Actions (published paper presented to the Second Intl Symposium on the Law of Remedies, Auckland, 16 November 2007)Google Scholar
Bradley, A, Ewing, K and Knight, C, Constitutional and Administrative Law (17th edn, Pearson, 2018)Google Scholar
Canadian Bar Assn, Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multi-Jurisdictional Class Actions (13 August 2011)Google Scholar
Canadian Bar Assn, Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multijurisdictional Class Actions and the Provision of Class Action Notice (15 February 2018)Google Scholar
Chiodo, S, ‘The Class Actions Controversy: The Origins and Development of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act’ (2018–19) 14 Canadian Class Action Review (whole issue, with chapters noted separately under ‘Periodicals’)Google Scholar
Clarkson, C, and Hill, J, The Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Collins (Lord) of Mapesbury, (gen ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012)Google Scholar
Conte, A, and Newberg, H, Newberg on Class Actions (4th edn, Thomson West Group, 2002)Google Scholar
German, J, VW Defeat Devices: A Comparison of US and EU Required Fixes (Intl Council on Clean Transportation, December 2017)Google Scholar
Grave, D, Adams, K and Betts, J, Class Actions in Australia (2nd edn, Lawbook Co, 2012)Google Scholar
Hodges, C, and Voet, S, Delivering Collective Redress: New Technologies (Hart Publishing, 2018)Google Scholar
Huschelrath, K, and Peyer, S, Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law: A Differentiated Approach (CCP Working Paper 13–5, April 2013)Google Scholar
Huschelrath, K, and Schweitzer, H (eds), Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Europe: Legal and Economic Perspectives (Springer-Verlag, ZEW Economic Studies Series Title, 2014)Google Scholar
International Bar Assn Legal Practice Division, Guidelines for Recognising and Enforcing Foreign Judgments for Collective Redress (October 2008)Google Scholar
Karlsgodt, P, (ed), World Class Action: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Kirby, M, Reform the Law: Essays on the Renewal of the Australian Legal System (Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar
Kliebard, K, et al., Class/collective Actions in the United States: Overview (Class Actions Global Guide, Practical Law, updated as at 1 September 2018)Google Scholar
Knigge, A, and Wijnberg, I, Class/collective Actions in The Netherlands: Overview (Class Actions Global Guide, Practical Law, updated as at 1 July 2018)Google Scholar
Lein, E, et al. (eds), Collective Redress in Europe: Why and How? (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2015)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, Group Litigation in Australia (National Report for Australia prepared for the Globalisation of Class Actions Conference, Oxford, December 2007)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, An Empirical Study of Australia’s Class Action Regimes: Class Action Facts and Figures (First Report) (December 2009)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, An Empirical Study of Australia’s Class Action Regimes: Litigation Funders, Competing Class Actions, Opt Out Rates, Victorian Class Actions and Class Representatives (Second Report) (September 2010)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, Class Action Facts and Figures – Five Years On (Third Report) (November 2014)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, An Empirical Study of Australia’s Class Action Regimes: Facts and Figures on Twenty-four Years of Class Actions in Australia (Fourth Report) (August 2016)Google Scholar
Morabito, V, An Empirical Study of Australia’s Class Action Regimes: The First 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Fifth Report) (July 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulheron, R, The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, The Modern Cy-près Doctrine: Applications and Implications (Routledge Cavendish, 2006)Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, Competition Law Cases under the Opt-out Regimes of Australia, Canada and Portugal (Research Paper for the BERR Dept, October 2008)Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales: A Perspective of Need (A Research Paper for submission to the Civil Justice Council of England and Wales, 2008)Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, Costs and Funding of Collective Actions: Realities and Possibilities (A Research Paper for the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC), February 2011)Google Scholar
Newbold, B, et al., Class/collective actions in Australia: Overview (Class Actions Global Guide, Practical Law, updated as at 1 August 2018)Google Scholar
Polinsky, M, and Shavell, S, Public Enforcement of Law (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, May 2006)Google Scholar
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Representative Proceedings in New South Wales – A Review of the Law and a Proposal for Reform (1995)Google Scholar
Rogerson, P, Collier’s Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tettenborn, A, and Blackburn, R, Halsbury’s Law of England: Crown and Crown Proceedings, vol 29 (5th edn, LexisNexis, 2014)Google Scholar
Torremans, P, Cheshire, North and Fawcett Private International Law (15th edn, Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Yeazell, , From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action (Yale University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, A, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (3rd edn, Thomson Sweet and Maxwell, 2013)Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A, —The Class Actions Law Review: Ireland (2nd edn, The Law Reviews, May 2018)Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A, —The Law of Class Action: Fifty-state Survey 2015–16 (American Bar Assn, 2016)Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A, —A Practitioner’s Guide to the December 2018 Federal Rule Amendments (Practical Law, 1 December 2018)Google Scholar
Zuckerman, A, —Ripe for Reform: Improving the Australian Class Action Regime (US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, March 2014)Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Law Reform of Committee of South Australia, Report Relating to Class Actions (Rep 36, 1977)Google Scholar
Victorian Attorney-General’s Law Reform Advisory Council (authored by V Morabito and J Epstein), Class Actions in Victoria – Time for a New Approach (1997)Google Scholar
ALRC, Traditional Rights and Freedoms: Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (Rep 129, 2015)Google Scholar
ALRC, Traditional Rights and Freedoms: Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (Rep 129, 2015)Google Scholar
Victorian LRC, Access to Justice – Litigation Funding and Group Proceedings (CP, 2017)Google Scholar
Victorian LRC, Access to Justice: Litigation Funding and Group Proceedings (March 2018)Google Scholar
ALRC, Inquiry into Class Action Proceedings and Third-Party Litigation Funders (DP 85, May 2018)Google Scholar
ALRC, Integrity, Fairness and Efficiency – An Inquiry into Class Action Proceedings and Third-Party Litigation Funders (Rep 134, December 2018)Google Scholar
Ontario Attorney-General’s Dept, Report of the Attorney-General’s Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform (1990)Google Scholar
British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General, Class Action Legislation for British Columbia (Consultation Document, 1994)Google Scholar
Manitoba Civil Justice Litigation Committee, Civil Justice Review Taskforce Report (1996)Google Scholar
Rules Committee of the Federal Court of Canada, Class Proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada (DP, 2000)Google Scholar
Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Civil Law Section, Report of the Uniform Law Conference Of Canada’s Committee on the National Class and Related Interjurisdictional Issues: Background, Analysis, and Recommendations (Vancouver, 9 March 2005)Google Scholar
Class Proceedings Fund 20 Years in Review (2013)Google Scholar
Law Reform Commission of Ontario, Review of Class Actions in Ontario – Issues to be Considered (November 2013)Google Scholar
Class Proceedings Fund Annual Report (2016)Google Scholar
Class Proceedings Fund Annual Report (2017)Google Scholar
Law Commission of Ontario, Class Actions: Objectives, Experiences and Reforms (CP, March 2018)Google Scholar
See too, the numerous additional reports, 1988–2003, noted in: Mulheron: The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Hart Publishing, 2004) 509–10Google Scholar
Lord Woolf MR, , Access to Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (1996)Google Scholar
Office of Fair Trading, Unfair Contract Terms Guidance: Consultation on Revised Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (OFT311, 2007)Google Scholar
Civil Justice Council, The Future Funding of Litigation: Funding Options and Proportionate Costs: Alternative Funding Structures (June 2007)Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Claims Management Services Regulation: Claims in Respect of Bank Charges: Guidance Note (27 July 2007)Google Scholar
Civil Justice Council (Sorabji, J, Napier, M and Musgrove, R (eds)), Improving Access to Justice through Collective Actions: Final Report (A Series of Recommendations to the Lord Chancellor) (November 2008)Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, The Government’s Response to the Civil Justice Council’s Report: ‘Improving Access to Justice through Collective Actions’ (July 2009)Google Scholar
Assn of Litigation Funders, Code of Conduct for Litigation Funding in England and Wales (2011), and with amended versions published in (2014) and (2017)Google Scholar
Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills, Private Actions in Competition Law: A Consultation on Options for Reform (April 2012)Google Scholar
Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills, Private Actions in Competition Law: A Consultation on Options for Reform: Government Response (2013)Google Scholar
Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules of Procedure: Review by the Rt Hon Sir John Mummery (3 April 2015)Google Scholar
Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills, Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) Rules of Procedure: Government Response (September 2015)Google Scholar
Competition and Markets Authority, Competition Law Redress: A Guide to Taking Action for Breaches of Competition Law (CMA 55, May 2016)Google Scholar
Civil Justice Council, The Law and Practicalities of Before-the-Event (BTE) Insurance: An Information Study (November 2017)Google Scholar
Competition Directorate-General, Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, COM (2005) 672 (19 December 2005)Google Scholar
White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, COM (2008) 165 (2 April 2008)Google Scholar
EC Staff Working Paper accompanying the White Paper, SEC (2008) 404 (2 April 2008)Google Scholar
European Parliament, Resolution on the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, 2008/2154 (INI) (26 March 2009)Google Scholar
European Parliament, Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (OJEUL110/30, 1 May 2009) (codifying Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests)Google Scholar
SANCO Directorate-General, Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress, COM (2008) 794 (27 November 2009)Google Scholar
SANCO, Staff Working Document, Practical Guide on Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of Art 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, SWD (2013) 205 (11 June 2013)Google Scholar
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages under National Law for Infringements of the Competition Law Provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, COM (2013) 404 (11 June 2013)Google Scholar
European Commission, Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2003 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (2013/396/EU) (OJ L201/60, 26 July 2013)Google Scholar
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Implementation of the Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on Common Principles for Injunctive and Compensatory Collective Redress Mechanisms in the Member States Concerning Violations of Rights granted under Union law (2013/396/EU), COM (2018) 40 final (25 January 2018)Google Scholar
Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (2009)Google Scholar
Sheriff Principal (J Taylor), Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland (October 2013)Google Scholar
Scottish Civil Justice Council, Annual Report 2017/18 and Annual Programme 2018/19 (2018)Google Scholar
South African Law Comm, The Recognition of a Class Action in South African Law (Working Paper 57, 1995)Google Scholar
South African Law Comm, The Recognition and Class Actions and Public Interest Actions in South African Law (Project 88, 1998)Google Scholar
Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, ‘Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts’ (1964) 34 Federal Rules Decisions 325Google Scholar
US Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure (1996)Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and Working Group on Mass Torts, Report on Mass Tort Litigation (1999)Hensler, D, et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 1999)Google Scholar
Administrative Office of the US Courts, Report of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (May 2002)Google Scholar
Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Chief Justice of the United States and Members of the Judicial Conference of the United States (September 2002)Google Scholar
Notes Accompanying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title IV, Parties, Rule 23, Class Actions, ‘Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules – 1966 Amendment’ (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)Google Scholar
US Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23 (2018)Google Scholar
Arvind, T, ‘Restraining the State Through Tort? The Crown Proceedings Act in Retrospect’, in Arvind, T and Steele, J (eds), Tort Law and the Legislature (Hart Publishing, 2013), ch 19Google Scholar
Betts, J et al., ‘Litigation Funding for Class Actions’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 10Google Scholar
Brown, J, ‘The Perils of Certifying International Class Actions in Canada’, in Fairgrieve, D and Lein, E (eds), Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 16Google Scholar
Brown, J, and Kain, B, ‘Cross-border Actions for Collective Redress: Some Lessons from Canada’, in Lein, E et al. (eds), Collective Redress in Europe: Why and How? (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2015) 203Google Scholar
Fleming, J, and Kuster, J, ‘The Netherlands’, in Karlsgodt, P (ed), World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 14Google Scholar
Geisker, J, and Tallis, J, ‘Australia’, in Third Party Litigation Funding Law Rev (2nd edn, 16 November 2018)Google Scholar
Grave, D, and Betts, J, ‘The Commission Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress: Some Reflections from Australia’, in Lein, E et al. (eds), Collective Redress in Europe: Why and How? (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2015) 219Google Scholar
Hamer, D, and D’Souza, S, ‘Multijurisdictional and Transnational Class Litigation: Lawsuits Heard “Round the World”’, in Karlsgodt, P (ed), World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 27Google Scholar
Jackson, H, and Zhang, J, ‘Private and Public Enforcement of Securities Regulations’, in Gordon, J and Ringe, W (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar
Khouri, S, et al., ‘Litigation Funding and Class Actions: Idealism, Pragmatism and a New Paradigm’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 11Google Scholar
Kim, I, ‘Public Enforcement’, in Marciano, A and Ramello, G (eds), Encyclopaedia of Law and Economics (Springer, 2016)Google Scholar
Legg, M, and Metzger, J, ‘Section 33ZF: Class Actions Problem Solver?’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 16Google Scholar
MacLean, J, ‘In What Circumstances Can You Apply to Review a Government Decision?’, in Western Australia Law Handbook (31 July 2018)Google Scholar
Martineau, Y, and Lang, A, ‘Canada’, in Karlsgodt, P (ed), World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 2Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Empirical Perspectives on 25 Years of Class Actions’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 4Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Costs-Shifting, Security for Costs, and Class Actions: Lessons from Elsewhere’, in Dwyer, D (ed), The Tenth Anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules (Oxford University Press, 2010), ch 10Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Disgruntled Customers and Bank Charges: Class Action (Reform) Activity’, in Grundmann, S et al. (eds), Financial Services, Financial Crisis and General European Contract Law: Failure and the Challenges of Contracting (Wolters Kluwer, 2011), ch 11Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘The Impetus for Class Actions Reform in England arising from the Competition Law Sector’, in Wrbka, S et al. (eds), Collective Actions: Enhancing Access to Justice and Reconciling Multilayer Interests? (Cambridge University Press, 2012), ch 15Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘In Defence of the Requirement for Foreign Class Members to Opt Into an English Class Action’, in Fairgrieve, D and Lein, E (eds), Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 14Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Class Actions and Law Reform: Insights from Australia and England, a Quarter of a Century Apart’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 14Google Scholar
Murphy, V Morabito, , ‘The First 25 years: Has the Class Action Regime Hit the Mark on Access to Justice?’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 3Google Scholar
Overington, R, ‘Resolving Multiple Claims: How Efficient is the Class Action Regime?’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 7Google Scholar
Raja, M, and Lomas, P, ‘A Lawyer’s Perspective’, in Lein, E et al. (eds), Collective Redress in Europe: Why and How? (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2015) 67Google Scholar
Sorabji, J, ‘Collective Actions Reform in England and Wales’, in Fairgrieve, D and Lein, E (eds), Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 3Google Scholar
Sossin, L, ‘Revisiting Class Actions Against the Crown: Balancing Public and Private Legal Accountability for Government Action’, in Kalajdzic, J (ed), Accessing Justice: Appraising Class Actions Ten Years After Dutton, Hollick & Rumley (LexisNexis, 2011), ch 3Google Scholar
Stuart-Clark, S, et al, ‘Australia’, in Karlsgodt, Paul (ed), World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe (Oxford University Press, 2012), ch 22Google Scholar
Wilcox (The Hon Murray), , ‘Class Actions in Australia: Recollections of the Early Days’, in Grave, D and Mould, H (eds), 25 Years of Class Actions in Australia (Ross Parsons, 2017), ch 2Google Scholar
Andenas, M, and Fairgrieve, D, ‘Reforming Crown Immunity – The Comparative Law Perspective’ [2003] Public Law 730Google Scholar
Aronson, M, ‘Government Liability in Negligence’ (2008) 32 Melbourne University Law Review 44Google Scholar
Aronson, M, ‘Misfeasance in Public Office: A Very Peculiar Tort’ (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 1Google Scholar
Barkett, J, The 2018 Amendments to the Federal Class Actions Rule (American Bar Assn, 2018)Google Scholar
Barling, (The Hon Mr Justice Gerald), ‘Collective Redress for Breach of Competition Law: A Case for Reform?’ (2011) 10 Competition Law Journal 5Google Scholar
Barnett, K, ‘Equitable Trusts: An Effective Remedy in Consumer Class Actions’ (1987) 96 Yale Law Journal 1591Google Scholar
Bassett, D, ‘US Class Actions Go Global: Transnational Class Actions and Personal Jurisdiction’ (2003) 72 Fordham Law Review 41Google Scholar
Bassett, D, ‘Just Go Away: Representation, Due Process, and Preclusion in Class Actions’ (2009) Brigham Young University Law Review 1079Google Scholar
Beaton-Wells, C, ‘Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Australia – Inching Forwards?’ (2016) 39 Melbourne University Law Review 681Google Scholar
Berryman, J, ‘Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink: Behavioural Modification, Cy-Près Distributions and Class Actions’ (2011) 53 Supreme Court Law Review 2d 133Google Scholar
Black, M, ‘Class Actions Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23’ (1979) 46 Tennessee Law Review 556Google Scholar
Bone, R, ‘Justifying Class Action Limits: Parsing the Debates over Ascertainability and Cy près’ (2017) 65 University of Kansas Law Review 913Google Scholar
Boughey, J, and Weeks, G, ‘“Officers of the Commonwealth” in the Private Sector: Can the High Court Review Outsourced Exercises of Power?’ (2013) 36 UNSW Law Journal 316Google Scholar
Braul, W, et al., ‘Water Use Challenges to Oil and Gas Developments’ (2015) 53 Alberta Law Review 323Google Scholar
Brown, M, ‘Our Aging CPA: It’s Time for Ontario to “Opt-In” to a Modern Global Class-Actions Framework’ (2017–18) 13 Canadian Class Actions Review 395Google Scholar
Burbank, S, and Farhang, S, ‘Class Actions and the Counter-revolution against Federal Litigation’ (2017) 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1495Google Scholar
Capes, M, ‘Book Review: A Guide to the Class Proceedings Act 1992’ (1993) 25 Ottawa Law Review 655Google Scholar
Chalk, D, ‘Solicitor client costs indemnities: unregulated insurance or benign assistance?’ [2013] Journal of Business Law 59Google Scholar
Chamberlain, N, ‘Contracting-Out of Class Action Litigation: Lessons from the United States’ [2018] New Zealand Law Review 371Google Scholar
Chamberlain, N, ‘Class Actions in New Zealand: An Empirical Study’ [2018] New Zealand Business Law Quarterly 132Google Scholar
Cheshire, A, ‘Fairbridge Farm School child migrant class action’ (2010) 100 Precedent 49Google Scholar
Chiodo, S, ‘Class Actions in England, North America and Australia’ (2018–19) 14 Canadian Class Action Review 15Google Scholar
Chiodo, S, ‘The Early Campaign for Reform and the OLRC Report’ (2018–19) 14 Canadian Class Action Review 47Google Scholar
Chiodo, S, ‘The Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform (1985–1993)’ (2018–19) 14 Canadian Class Action Review 89Google Scholar
Chiodo, S, ‘Class Actions Twenty-five Years On’ (2018–19) 14 Canadian Class Actions Review 189Google Scholar
Cohn, S, ‘The New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ (1966) 54 Georgia Law Journal 1204Google Scholar
Collins, D, ‘Public Funding of Class Actions and the Experience with English Group Proceedings’ (2005) 31 Manitoba Law Journal 211Google Scholar
Crandley, M, ‘Federal Rule Changes Coming in December’ (National Law Review, 26 September 2018)Google Scholar
DeJarlais, N, ‘The Consumer Trust Fund: A Cy Près Solution to Undistributed Funds in Consumer Class Actions’ (1987) 38 Hastings Law Journal 729Google Scholar
Dyk, A, ‘A Better Way to Cy-près: A Proposal to Reform Class Action Cy-près Distribution’ (2019) 21 NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 635Google Scholar
Erichson, H, ‘Searching for Salvageable Ideas in Ficala’ (2018) 87 Fordham Law Review 19Google Scholar
Foreman, J, and Meisenheimer, G, ‘The Evolution of the Class Action Trial in Ontario’ (2014) 4 Western Journal of Legal Studies 1Google Scholar
Frankel, M, ‘Amended Rule 23 From a Judge’s Point of View’ (1966) 32 ABA Antitrust Law Journal 251Google Scholar
Frankel, M, ‘Some Preliminary Observations Concerning Civil Rule 23’ (1967) 43 Federal Rules Decisions 39Google Scholar
Gamble, R, ‘Jostling for a Piece of the (Class) Action: Third Party Funders and Entrepreneurial Lawyers Stake their Claims’ (2017) 46 Common Law World Review 3Google Scholar
Glover-Thomas, N, and Barr, W, ‘Enabling or Disabling? Increasing Involvement of Charities in Social Housing’ [2009] Conveyancing and Property Lawyer 209Google Scholar
Harvey, M, ‘Case Comment: Sibthorpe v Southwark LBC’ [2011] Journal of Personal Injury Law C98Google Scholar
Higgins, A, ‘Driving with the Handbrake On: Competition Class Actions under the Consumer Rights Act 2015’ (2016) 79 Modern Law Review 442Google Scholar
Higgins, A, and Zuckerman, A, ‘Class Actions Come to England (Editorial)’ (2016) 35 Civil Justice Quarterly 1Google Scholar
Higgins, R, ‘The Equitable Doctrine of Cy-près and Consumer Protection’ (Annex 1, ACA Submission, Trade Practices Rev, 15 July 2002)Google Scholar
Hillebrand, G, and Torrence, D, ‘Claims Procedures in Large Consumer Class Actions and Equitable Distribution of Benefits’ (1988) 28 Santa Clara Law Review 747Google Scholar
Hills, B, ‘Never Settle for Second Best? Cy près Distributions in Securities Class Action Settlements’ (2017) Missouri Law Review 507Google Scholar
Hogg, P, and McKee, S, ‘Are National Class Actions Constitutional?’ (2010) 26 National Journal of Constitutional Law 279Google Scholar
Hogg, P, and McKee, S, ‘Are National Class Actions Constitutional? – A Reply to Walker’ (2013) 31 National Journal of Constitutional Law 183Google Scholar
Irving, C, and Bouchard, M, ‘National Opt Out Class Actions, A Constitutional Assessment’ (2009) 26 National Journal of Constitutional Law 111Google Scholar
Johnston, J, ‘Cy Près Comme Possible to Anything is Possible: How Cy Près Creates Improper Incentives in Class Action Settlements’ (2013) 9 Journal of Law, Economics and Policy 277Google Scholar
Jois, G, ‘The Cy Près Problem and the Role of Damages in Tort Law’ (2008) 16 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law 258Google Scholar
Jones, C, ‘New Solitudes: Recent Decisions Call into Question the National Class Action’ (2007) 45 Canadian Business Law Journal 111Google Scholar
Kalajdzic, J, ‘Access to a Just Result: Revisiting Settlement Standards and Cy-près Distributions’ (2010) 6 Canadian Class Action Review 217Google Scholar
Kalajdizic, J, ‘Consumer (In)Justice: Reflections on Canadian Consumer Class Actions’ (2011) 50 Canadian Business Law Journal 356Google Scholar
Kalajdzic, J, ‘The “Illusion of Compensation”: Cy-Près Distributions in Canadian Class Actions’ (2013) 92 Canadian Bar Review 173Google Scholar
Kaplan, B, ‘Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ (1967) 81 Harvard Law Review 356Google Scholar
Karas, S, ‘The Role of Fluid Recovery in Consumer Protection Litigation: Kraus v Trinity Management Services’ (2002) 90 California Law Review 959Google Scholar
Krusell, J, ‘Are National Class Actions Constitutional? A Reply to Walker, Hogg and McKee’ (2012) 90 University of Toronto Faculty Law Review 9Google Scholar
Lambert, K, ‘Class Actions Settlements in Louisiana’ (2000) 61 Louisiana Law Review 89Google Scholar
McCall, J, et al., ‘Greater Representation for California Consumers: Fluid Recovery, Consumer Trust Funds, and Representative Actions’ (1995) 46 Hastings Law Journal 797Google Scholar
Malone, M, ‘Judicial Scrutiny of Third Party Litigation Funding Agreements in Canadian Class Actions’ (2017–18) 13 Canadian Class Action Review 193Google Scholar
Marcus, R, ‘Revolution v Evolution in Class Action Reform’ (2018) 96 North Carolina Law Review 903Google Scholar
Marcus, D, ‘The History of the Modern Class Action, Part I’ (2013) 90 Washington University Law Review 587Google Scholar
Marcin, R, ‘Searching for the Origin of the Class Action’ (1974) 23 Catholic University Law Review 515Google Scholar
Marshall, D, ‘Solicitor Indemnity against Adverse Costs’ [2012] Journal of Personal Injury Law 62Google Scholar
Martin, J, ‘Sui Generis: Common Law Solutions to Constitutional Problems in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings’ (2013) 69 University of Toronto Faculty Law Review 55Google Scholar
Miller, A, ‘Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the “Class Action Problem”’ (1979) 92 Harvard Law Review 664Google Scholar
Miller, A, ‘McIntyre in Context: A Very Personal Perspective’ (2012) 63 South Carolina Law Review 465Google Scholar
Mohammed-Davidson, R, ‘Show me the Money: Enforcing Original Jurisdiction Judgments of the Caribbean Court of Justice’ (2016) 29 Leiden Journal of International Law 113Google Scholar
Monestier, T, ‘Personal Jurisdiction over Non-Resident Class Members: Have We Gone Down the Wrong Road?’ (2010) 45 Texas International Law Journal 537Google Scholar
Monestier, T, ‘Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata’ (2011) 86 Tulane Law Review 1Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Ideological Plaintiffs and Class Actions: An Australian Perspective’ (2001) 34 University of British Columbia Law Review 459Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Class Actions Against Multiple Respondents’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review 295Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Standing to Sue and Multiple Defendant Class Actions in Australia, Canada and the United States’ (2003) 41 Alberta Law Review 295Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘The Federal Court of Australia’s Power to Terminate Properly Instituted Class Actions’ (2004) 42 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 473Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Class Actions Instituted only for the Benefit of the Clients of the Class Representative’s Solicitors’ (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 5Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s Class Action Reform Strategy’ (2009) 32 UNSW Law Journal 1055Google Scholar
Morabito, V, and Caruana, J, ‘Australian Unions: The Unknown Class Action Protagonists’ (2011) 30 Civil Justice Quarterly 382Google Scholar
Morabito, V, and Caruana, J, ‘Can Class Action Regimes Operate Satisfactorily Without a Certification Device? Empirical Insights from the Federal Court of Australia’ (2013) 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 579Google Scholar
Morabito, V, and Ekstein, J, ‘Class Actions Filed for the Benefit of Vulnerable Persons: An Australian Study’ (2016) 35 Civil Justice Quarterly 61Google Scholar
Morabito, V, ‘Lessons from Australia on Class Action Reform in New Zealand’ (2018) 24 New Zealand Business Law Quarterly 178Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘From Representative Rule to Class Action: Steps Rather than Leaps’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 424Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Some Difficulties with Group Litigation Orders – and Why a Class Action is Superior’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 40Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Justice Enhanced: Framing an Opt-Out Class Action for England’ (2007) 70 Modern Law Review 550Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, and Cashman, P, ‘Third Party Funding of Litigation: A Changing Landscape’ (2008) 27 Civil Justice Quarterly 312Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Building Blocks and Design Points for an Opt-out Class action’ [2008] Journal of Personal Injury Law 308Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Emerald Supplies Ltd v British Airways plc: A Century Later, the Ghost of Markt Lives On’ (2009) 8 Competition Law Journal 159Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘The Case for an Opt-out Class Action for European Member States: A Legal and Empirical Analysis’ (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 409Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Cy-près Damages Distributions in England: A New Era for Consumer Redress’ (2009) 20 European Business Law Review 307Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Opting In, Opting Out, and Closing the Class: Some Dilemmas for England’s Class Action Lawmakers’ (2010) 50 Canadian Business Law Journal 376Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Recent Milestones in Class Actions: A Critique and a Proposal’ (2011) 127 Law Quarterly Review 288Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Recent Milestones in Class Actions Reform in England: A Critique and a Proposal’ (2011) 127 Law Quarterly Review 288Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘A Missed Gem of an Opportunity for the Representative Rule’ [2012] Euro Business Law Review 49Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘The Recognition and Res Judicata Effect of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of Vivendi’ (2012) 75 Modern Law Review 180Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘A Channel Apart: Why the United Kingdom has Departed from the European Commission’s Recommendations on Class Actions’ (2015) 17 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 36Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Third Party Funding and Class Actions Reform’ (2015) 131 Law Quarterly Review 291Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘A Spotlight on the Settlement Criteria under the United Kingdom’s New Competition Class Action’ (2016) 35 Civil Justice Quarterly 1Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘The United Kingdom’s New Opt-Out Class Action’ (2017) 37 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 814Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, and Edlin, D, ‘The Mere Mirage of a Class Action? A Challenge to Merricks v Mastercard Inc’ (2018) 37 Civil Justice Quarterly 216Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Joining the United Kingdom’s Class Action as a Non-resident: A Legislative Drafting Conundrum’ (2020) 39 Civil Justice Quarterly 69Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Revisiting the Class Action Certification Matrix in Merricks v Mastercard Inc’ (2019) 30 King’s Law Journal 396Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘Asserting Personal Jurisdiction over Non-Resident Class Members: Comparative Insights for the United Kingdom’ (2019) 15 Journal of Private International Law 445Google Scholar
Mulheron, R, ‘England’s Unique Approach to the Self-Regulation of Third Party Funding: A Critical Analysis of Recent Developments’ (2014) 73 Cambridge Law Journal 570Google Scholar
Mullenix, L, ‘Ending Class Actions As We Know Them: Rethinking the American Class Action’ (2014) 64 Emory Law Journal 399Google Scholar
Munro, D, ‘Class Actions in Virginia state courts? Or is it just Bull?’ (2012) 23 Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association 26Google Scholar
Murphy, R, ‘Competing Ideologies at the Formation of the Federal Class Action Rule: Legal Process versus Legal Liberalism’ (2018) 10 Drexel Law Review 389Google Scholar
Murtagh, M, ‘The Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority Requirement and Transnational Class Actions: Excluding Foreign Class Members in Favor of European Remedies’ (2011) 34 Hastings International and Competition Law Review 1Google Scholar
National Audit Office, What are third sector organisations and their benefits for commissioners? (October 2010)Google Scholar
Partridge, S, and Miller, K, ‘Some Practical Considerations for Defending and Settling Products Liability and Consumer Class Actions’ (2000) 74 Tulane Law Review 2125Google Scholar
Phi, B, ‘Arming the Courts in Collective Redress: A Move to “Australian-Style” Class Actions in the UK?’ (2017) 36 Civil Justice Quarterly 197Google Scholar
Piche, C, ‘The Coming Revolution in Class Action Notices: Reaching the Universe of Claimants through Technologies’ (2018) 16 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 227Google Scholar
Pritchard, A, and Sarra, J, ‘Securities Class Actions Move North: A Doctrinal and Empirical Analysis of Securities Class Actions in Canada’ (2010) 47 Alberta Law Review 881Google Scholar
Rabiej, K, ‘The Making of Class Action Rule 23: What Were We Thinking?’ (2005) 24 Mississippi College Law Review 323Google Scholar
Resnik, J, ‘“Vital” State Interests: From Representative Actions for Fair Labor Standards to Pooled Trusts, Class Actions, and MDLs in the Federal Courts’ (2017) 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1765Google Scholar
Rubenstein, W, ‘On What a “Private Attorney General” Is – and Why it Matters’ (2004) 57 Vanderbilt Law Review 2129Google Scholar
Sackville, (The Hon Justice Ronald), ‘Law and Poverty: A Paradox’ (2018) 41 UNSW Law Journal 80Google Scholar
Sackville, (The Hon Justice Ronald), ‘Judicial Review of Migration Decisions: An Institution in Peril?’ (2000) 23 UNSW Law Journal 190Google Scholar
Sandstrom Simard, L, and Tidmarsh, J, ‘Foreign Citizens in Transnational Class Actions’ (2011) 97 Cornell Law Review 87Google Scholar
Schenkkan, P, ‘State Class Action Reform: Lessons from Texas’ (2005) 12 Andrews Class Action Litigation Reports 15Google Scholar
Scott, V, ‘Access to Justice and Choice of Law Issues in Multi-Jurisdictional Class Actions in Canada’ (2013) Ottawa Law Review 233Google Scholar
Sedgwick, A, ‘Case Comment: Sibthorpe v Southwark LBC’ (2011) 30 Civil Justice Quarterly 261Google Scholar
Seymour, J, ‘Representative Proceedings and the Future of Multi-Party Actions’ (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 565Google Scholar
Seymour, J, ‘Independiente Ltd v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 16Google Scholar
Sherman, E, ‘American Civil Justice in a Global Context’ (2002) 52 De Paul Law Review 401Google Scholar
Sorabji, J, ‘The Hidden Class Action in English Civil Procedure’ (2009) 28 Civil Justice Quarterly 498Google Scholar
Sorabji, J, ‘Coping with Complexity and Securing Justice through Multi-Party Litigation: Lessons from the CAT and JJB Sports’ [2014] European Business Law Review 527Google Scholar
Spender, J, ‘Securities Class Actions: A View from the Land of the Great White Shareholder’ (2002) 31 Common Law World Review 123Google Scholar
Stuart-Clark, S, and Harris, C, ‘Multi-Plaintiff Litigation in Australia: A Comparative Perspective’ (2001) 11 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 289Google Scholar
Stuart-Clark, S, and Harris, C, ‘’Class Actions in Australia: (Still) a Work in Progress’ (2008) 31 Australian Bar Review 63Google Scholar
Tidmarsh, J, ‘Cy Près and the Optimal Class Action’ (2014) 82 George Washington Law Review 767Google Scholar
Underwood, J, ‘Rationality, Multiplicity & Legitimacy: Federalization of the Interstate Class Action’ (2004) 46 South Texas Law Review 391Google Scholar
Walker, J, ‘Cross-border Class Actions: A View from Across the Border’ (2004) Michigan State Law Review 755Google Scholar
Walker, J, ‘Coordinating Multijurisdictional Class Actions Through Existing Certification Processes’ (2006) 42 Canadian Business Law Journal 112Google Scholar
Walker, J, ‘Are National Class Actions Constitutional? A Reply to Hogg and McKee’ (2010) 48 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 95Google Scholar
Watson, G, ‘Initial Interpretations of Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act: The Anaheim and the Breast Implant Actions’ (1993) 18 Carswell Practice Cases – Articles (3rd series) 344Google Scholar
Watson, G, ‘Is the Price Still Right?’ (Administration of Justice Conference, Toronto, 15 October 1997)Google Scholar
Wilcox, (The Hon Justice Murray), ‘Representative Proceedings in the Federal Court: A Progress Report’ (1997) 15 Australian Bar Review 91Google Scholar
Wright, G, ‘The Cost-Internalization Case for Class Actions’ (1969) 21 Stanford Law Review 383Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, ‘Group Litigation and Social Context: Toward a History of the Class Action’ (1977) 77 Columbia Law Review 866Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, ‘From Group Litigation to Class Action Part I: The Industrialization of Group Litigation’ (1980) 27 UCLA Law Review 514Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, ‘From Group Litigation to Class Action Part II: Interest, Class, and Representation’ (1980) 27 UCLA Law Review 1067Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, —‘Class Actions and Interpleader: California Procedure and the Federal Rules’ (1953) 6 Stanford Law Review 120Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, —‘Aggregation of Claims in Class Actions’ (1968) 68 Columbia Law Review 1554Google Scholar
Yeazell, S, —‘Federal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23’ (1946) 46 Columbia Law Review 818Google Scholar
Bowcott, O, ‘Impact of cuts to legal aid to come under review’ (The Guardian, 31 October 2017)Google Scholar
British Columbia Attorney-General, ‘Legislation introduced to modernize class actions’ (Information Bulletin, 23 April 2018)Google Scholar
Clayton, Utz, ‘NSW rolls back contentious cy-près rule in class actions bill’; (Lexology, 3 December 2010)Google Scholar
de Carbonnel, A, ‘EU says VW yet to guarantee emissions fix does not impair cars’ (Reuters, 17 July 2018)Google Scholar
Emmerig, J, et al., ‘Supreme Court of New South Wales Relaxes Requirements for Class Actions’ (Jones Day Publications, April 2019)Google Scholar
Hurst, B, ‘The “Tidal Wave” of Data Protection-related Class Actions: Why We’re not Drowning Just Yet … ’ (Bird & Bird Information Bulletin, November 2018)Google Scholar
Morrison, J, ‘Proposed Rule 23 Amendment for Class Action Settlement: Sea Change or Codification of the Status Quo?’ (Class Action Lawsuit Defense, 11 May 2018)Google Scholar
Oloschakoff, K, and Hirst, N, ‘VW is winning, at least in Europe’ (Politico, 27 July 2016)Google Scholar
Piper, Alderman, ‘Class Actions in Australia: A Plaintiff’s Paradise?’ (Lexology, 19 February 2010)Google Scholar
Posaner, J, ‘German consumer group files class suit against VW’ (Politico, 1 November 2018)Google Scholar
Ruckin, C, ‘Cohen Milstein Lands $200 M BA–Virgin Settlement’ (Legal Week, 15 February 2008)Google Scholar
Schrama, H, and Sinnighe Damste, M, ‘Class Action for Damages in the Netherlands’; (Loyens Loeff Newsletter, 20 March 2019)Google Scholar
Thomasson, E, ‘German consumer group plans more compensation cases against Volkswagen’ (Reuters, 30 August 2017)Google Scholar
Van Rest, C, and Keizers, B, ‘A Collective Action for Damages in the Netherlands in a Fact!’; (Hogan Lovells Publications, 2 April 2019)Google Scholar
Walters, M, ‘Appeal Court Revives Mammoth £14bn Mastercard Group Action’ (Law Society Gazette, 16 April 2019)Google Scholar
Williams, P, ‘Cy-près Distributions: Uses and Controversies’ (McCarthy Tetrault News, 18 January 2019)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years’ (NY Times, 25 September 1971)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘Queensland floods class action to begin in NSW Supreme Court’ (The Weekend Australian, 8 July 2014)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘An Introduction to Collective Redress Schemes’ (Pinsent Masons, April 2016)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘2011 Queensland Floods: Class action begins in NSW Supreme Court’ (Courier-Mail, 3 December 2017)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘New flood class action seeks compensation for what might have been’ (Brisbane Times, 23 March 2017)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘Dieselgate scandal roots revealed as industry in spotlight for German election’ (Autovista Group, 29 August 2017)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘Watch Out for GDPR-related Claims: It’s Not all about Fines … ’ (Walker Morris Update, 25 July 2018)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘German Consumer Group Files Suit in VW Diesel Scandal’ (Associated Press, 1 November 2018)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —‘Introduction of Miscellaneous Bill’ (British Government News, 19 November 2018)Google Scholar
Williams, P, —Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edn, revised, Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Burchfield, R, New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (3rd edn, revised, Clarendon Press, 1998)Google Scholar
Martin, E, and Law, J (eds), Oxford Dictionary of Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar