header-logo header-logo

Post-PACCAR: truckloads of litigation-funding developments

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll