header-logo header-logo

13 October 2023 / Lucy Keane
Issue: 8044 / Categories: Features , Profession , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail

Litigation funding: Keep on truckin’?

142552
Lucy Keane assesses the damage after Paccar Inc v CAT drove a juggernaut through the UK litigation funding industry
  • Looks at the facts, law and reasoning in Paccar Inc v CAT.
  • Assesses the impact of the case on the litigation funding industry.

In July 2023, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) took many by surprise when it issued its judgment in an appeal brought by Paccar Inc, DAF Trucks NV and DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH against the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), UK Trucks Claim Ltd (UKTC) and the Road Haulage Association (RHA). To the astonishment of many, the court’s decision struck at what had hitherto been regarded as solid ground and the foundation for very many litigation funding arrangements in the UK. The implications of this surprising decision are reverberating around the litigation funding industry in the UK with many players expressing concern about whether funding in its previously accepted form can continue.

The UKSC’s judgment that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) that take the form of a damages-based agreement

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll