header-logo header-logo

24 May 2024 / David Greene
Issue: 8072 / Categories: Opinion , Litigation funding , International
printer mail-detail

Funding in flux

174079
David Greene on the debate about the future of litigation funding at home & abroad

The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill (LFA(E)B) is on a head-long flight through both Houses of Parliament, currently in committee stage in the House of Lords, where it was introduced. The terms of the Bill are short and sweet (subject to your view, as below), one section reversing with retrospective effect the decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, [2023] 4 All ER 675. Seemingly the only event standing in its way would be an early election. But while the Bill appears to have wide backing in Parliament, there are those vocally opposed to it and it has given rise to a more general debate about the regulation of third-party litigation funding, now to be considered by the Civil Justice Council (CJC) at the direction of the Lord Chancellor.

Unenforceable agreements

The Supreme Court decision in PACCAR and the interpretation given by the court

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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
back-to-top-scroll