header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
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

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll