Class Actions & Accumulations of Wrongdoing

Class Action

Chances for justice can improve where the suspected wrongdoing disclosed is of a significant size and/or has impacted a significant number of persons.

In this circumstance, a class action before the courts, funded by a knowledgeable and well-resourced third party, may be a viable option.

The third party has the legal representation expertise for the case, and the funds necessary to last whatever legal tactics are used by the government and/or the agency.

The third party undertakes the legal action on a pro bono basis for the affected parties who join the class action, but in return for this risk the third party may require a proportion of the damages won at court.

It needs to be appreciated, however, that the third party may have altruistic motives and/or may have commercial motives for initiating the legal proceedings.

Where the motives are largely commercial, the third party undertakes the legal action for a share of the damages won.

The third party may elect to accept a settlement from the government or agency on a confidential basis, such that there is no ‘day in court’ for the whistleblower nor any public disclosure/discussion/publication over the issues.

This can be a disappointing result for the whistleblower, as it may be the case that the wrongdoing, as a result, is not exposed to the public, and the public interest, as a result, may not then be served, to say nothing of the resultant opening for the wrongdoing repeated again.

Class actions are not to be confused with no-win-no-fee arrangements that an individual whistleblower may be offered by a law firm.

These arrangements have proved to be very problematic-cum-dangerous for the whistleblower, where clauses in the arrangement allow the law firm to switch the rules and the whistleblower then faces large expenses for which the whistleblower is unprepared.

This can force the whistleblower into accepting a settlement that covers only the legal expenses and ends all further rights to claims of damages by the whistleblower.

Accumulations

The most notable example here is abuse and sexual abuse of children.

Sixty years of abuse within government and church and community institutions, allegedly protected from investigation by institutions that included the police, distinguished clergy, government care agencies and their ministers, and the courts. 

Eventually the volume of complaints and adverse impacts became so large as to bring a Prime Minister to announce a Royal Commission.

It appears that modern forms of communication may reduce the time taken for public knowledge of such volumes of accumulated wrongdoing to become an irresistible force capable of moving an otherwise immoveable object (i.e. government) into action.

By any reasonable standard, the half century taken with child abuse is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, QWAG cannot yet be sure that all cases of suppression and cover-up by all institutions are to be pursued by the Royal Commission as strongly as the highest Offices within churches have been pursued.