header-logo header-logo

A busted cap, third party funders & defence costs, where next?

22 April 2020 / Thomas Wingfield
Issue: 7883 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Commercial , Costs
printer mail-detail
Does the recent affirmation that commercial litigation funders could face unlimited costs liability mark the effective end of the Arkin cap? Thomas Wingfield reports
  • The ‘Arkin cap’ limits a third-party funder’s liability to pay a successful defendant’s costs to the sum that the fund paid to its unsuccessful claimant.
  • The Court of Appeal recently confirmed an order for a third-party funder to pay all of the defendants’ costs. The court refused to apply the Arkin cap, which may now become the exception and not the norm.

At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs: commercial third-party funding is when an entity finances a claim in return for a share of any money recovered. Some funders prefer the term ‘legal finance’. It has long been legal, encouraged even, here in England for an unconnected business to fund another’s litigation or arbitration in the hope of profit, provided that the third-party does not meddle in the claimant’s conduct

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll