header-logo header-logo

23 February 2024 / Joseph Evans , Simon Heatley
Issue: 8060 / Categories: Features , Litigation funding , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Post-PACCAR: truckloads of litigation-funding developments

160022
Joseph Evans & Simon Heatley talk PACCAR, PlayStation & the Post Office—and what’s further down the road for litigation funding
  • Considers recent litigation funding cases in the context of the PACCAR decision, and predicts what’s next for the industry.

Since the Supreme Court gave judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 in July 2023, there has been much debate on the impact of the decision. 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 (LFAs) fall within the ambit of PACCAR as non-compliant damages-based agreements (DBAs) with mixed success. At the same time, with the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry highlighting the key role litigation funding can play in providing access to justice, the government has stated that it intends to reverse the ‘damaging effects of PACCAR at the first legislative opportunity’.

Litigation funders believe

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