header-logo header-logo

Hopes raised on PACCAR law

16 January 2024
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have welcomed further signs legislation will be introduced to reverse the PACCAR judgment, which restricts litigation funding

In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, the Supreme Court held litigation funding agreements are damages-based agreements and therefore unenforceable.

The Financial Times reported this week Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor, told it in a statement: ‘The government will be reversing the damaging effects of PACCAR at the first legislative opportunity.’

Litigation funding enabled the group action of 555 subpostmasters caught up in the Horizon IT scandal against the Post Office, led by Freeths partner James Hartley, which was dramatised by ITV in Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

Martyn Day, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), said: ‘It has been alarming to see those opposed to litigation funding—unscrupulous big businesses and their cheerleaders—attempting to argue for legislation to restrict funders and law firms from obtaining justice.

‘Group or collective actions are now an intrinsic part of our legal system. If the government were to cave in and impose ill-thought-out restrictions on the ways in which funders and law firms operate, they would be denying access to justice to millions of citizens while giving businesses and corporations, set on using restrictive or unethical practices, a free hand.’

The government has already set out its plans for certain categories of cases—clause 126 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill reverses the effect of the case, but only for opt-out clauses in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

During a Lords debate in December on the Bill, Lord Sandhurst proposed a draft amendment to widen cl 126 beyond CAT. Viscount Camrose, for the government, stated the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle but the government was ‘actively considering options for a wider response’.

 

Issue: 8055 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll