Harcus Sinclair (a firm) v Buttonwood Legal Capital Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 2974 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 134 (Oct)
Where a non-party was the solicitor to the unsuccessful litigant, the case-law mandated a close look at the questions of funding, control and benefit, and how overall, in the light of those factors, the discretion should be applied. The existence of funding by a solicitor could not therefore in itself be a sufficient basis for concluding that the solicitor is either the, or a, real party to the litigation or vulnerable to a non-party order for costs. What the court had to see was therefore some element which indicated that, as it was sometimes put in the case-law, the solicitor had, at least to some extent, acted outside his role as a solicitor for his client, or, for a purpose outside that role. It had to equally be the case that the potential benefit, if victory enabled the client to pay the solicitor, was not a factor which could properly open the door to an order against
