header-logo header-logo

Litigation funding legislation to reverse PACCAR

06 March 2024
Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail
The government has confirmed it will introduce a law to restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling last year on litigation funding

Legislation introduced by Alex Chalk, Lord Chancellor, will make it easier for people to secure litigation funding from third parties when pursuing complex claims against wealthy corporates or other large organisations such as the Post Office. Litigation funding was essential to the subpostmasters’ claim, led by former subpostmaster Alan Bates, which challenged the Post Office’s reliance on its flawed Horizon accounting system.

It will effectively reverse R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, in which it was held that litigation funding agreements where payment is based on the amount of damages recovered are damages-based agreements, and therefore mainly unenforceable.

Chalk said: ‘It’s crucial victims can access justice—but it can feel like a David and Goliath battle when they’re facing powerful corporations with deep pockets.’

He said the government is considering options for a wider review of the litigation funding sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out, including whether more regulation and safeguards are required.

Martyn Day, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), said: ‘This is a very sensible and welcome development from government.

‘It will ensure that groups of claimants seeking redress resulting from wrongdoing by large corporations and other bodies will be able to focus on bringing claims without those corporations tying up court time and money in trying to unpick the funding agreements that make the claims possible.

‘Collective redress is a vital legal mechanism by which ordinary people can seek justice when wrong is done to them by mighty corporations and other bodies. We will work closely with government on any reform that gives clarity, certainty and fairness to claimants and those who support them in bringing their claims.’

Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll