header-logo header-logo

22 April 2020 / Thomas Wingfield
Issue: 7883 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Commercial , Costs
printer mail-detail

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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll