The seismic PACCAR judgment gave rise to considerable debate, not least its potential to stifle funding for important litigation such as the Post Office Horizon case
In fact, the government has since indicated it will bring in legislation to reverse PACCAR’s effect. In this week’s NLJ, Joseph Evans, senior associate, and Simon Heatley, knowledge lead, at Charles Russell Speechlys, look at recent litigation funding cases decided in the wake of PACCAR and consider what may happen next.
The case, which arose from a truck manufacturing dispute, was financed by a litigation funding agreement held by the Supreme Court to be a non-compliant damages-based agreement and therefore unenforceable. The decision looked likely to stifle a wide range of cases brought on the basis of litigation funded agreements.
Evans and Heatley take a close look at the decision and its practical implications. They identify limitations and potential gaps in the decision, which may allow litigation funders a way through.
The authors write: ‘Now the dust has started to settle, we are beginning to see judicial challenges arising under PACCAR, with litigants seeking to establish that existing litigation funding agreements fall within the ambit of PACCAR as non-compliant damages-based agreements with mixed success.’
