Shine vs Slater and Gordon vs IPH FY21 Results | LPI

Shine vs Slater and Gordon vs IPH FY21 Results | LPI


Shine Justice (aka Shine Lawyers) settled more than 7,000 matters in financial year 2020/21 with staff numbers at the end of the financial year at 978.

Services revenue for FY21 was $191.9 million up $11m on FY20.

FY21 Profit Before Income Tax was $36.9m compared to $32m in FY20.

Growth in Class Actions was a major contributor to revenue and earnings. Revenue from non-personal injury practice areas has now surpassed personal injury revenue. Personal Injury work suffered a significant decline in revenue of $13.6m. This was more than made up for by other practice areas.

Staff costs in FY21 were $101m or 52.5% of services revenue (50.9% for FY20).

FY21 EBITDA $56.2m (FY20 $51.2m).

The most impressive part of Shine’s financial performance was its improved cashflow. Cash Inflow from Operating Activities was $49m compared to $25m in FY20.

Shine’s market capitalisation is now approx. $184m.

Slater & Gordon

Rival Slater & Gordon, which focuses on personal injury and class actions, had improved business activity in FY21 largely reflected in an increase in work in progress. On a cashflow basis, it underperformed compared to FY20. Receipts from customers were down by $10.7m to $223.4m (FY21). Shine’s receipts from customers $218.5m (incl.GST) were up by $42.9m in FY21 compared to FY20.

IPH Limited

IPH Limited reported its FY21 results (commentary here). It is a company with 900+ employees, i.e. similar numbers to Shine Lawyers. IPH produced an EBITDA of $113m compared to Shine’s $56.2m.

While EBITDA is roughly double for IPH compared to Shine, ASX-investors are valuing IPH at $2.01 billion which is more than 10 times the value of Shine’s market capitalisation of around $184 million.

Article submitted by Peter Frankl

Subscribe to the Legal Practice Intelligence fortnightly eBulletin. Follow the links to access more articles related to the business of law and legal technology.    

Disclaimer:  The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Novum Learning or Legal Practice Intelligence (LPI). While every attempt has been made to ensure that the information in this article has been obtained from reliable sources, neither Novum Learning or LPI nor the author is responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information, as the content published here is for information purposes only. The article does not constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law relating thereto and does not constitute professional and/or financial advice.

Back to blog