header-logo header-logo

20 October 2017
Issue: 7766 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

The evolution of third party funding

nlj_7766_purewal

Litigation funding can help control costs & add value to the litigation process, says Sergei Purewal

  • The growth and establishment of litigation funding.
  • Paying for litigation costs and managing risk.

If in a particular erudite game of trivial pursuit, about a decade or so ago, you were asked whether litigation funding by a third party in the UK was a part of the mainstream consideration for litigation costs, your answer almost definitely would have been: ‘What is third party litigation funding?’

Litigation funding, and its emergence as a professional market, developed outside of the UK in a common law jurisdiction largely within the insolvency sector. In many civil law jurisdictions, an outright assignment of a claim to a third party has always to an extent been legally possible. Despite some corners of the legal profession believing otherwise, the days of applying the principles of maintenance and champerty have not gone away. There are still checks and balances in place when it comes

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll