header-logo header-logo

Commercial funders versus ‘pure’ funders

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

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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll