header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Issue: 7766 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Commercial funders versus ‘pure’ funders

nlj_7766_highley

When can security be ordered against non-party funders? Richard Highley & Deirdre Lyons Le Croy report

  • Courts may now be prepared to order security for costs against third parties funding litigation for commercial reasons.

The decision of Hildyard J in The RBS Rights Issue Litigation [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 173 (May) is a useful benchmark for defendants seeking security for costs on cases where litigation funding is present. The litigation involved applications for security against two different funders. It was a long-running case, involving exceptional levels of costs (£19.3m was sought as security), a very late application and multiple claimants with several (not joint) liability for costs under a group litigation order, making enforcing a costs order highly problematic.

A defendant may apply for a security for costs order against a non-party which contributes to the claimant’s costs in return for a share in the litigation proceeds but the court must be satisfied, in all the circumstances of the case,

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll