header-logo header-logo

29 March 2024 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 8065 / Categories: Opinion , Litigation funding , In Court
printer mail-detail

The insider: 29 March & 5 April 2024

166028
Litigation funders rejoice as the Lords step in to solve their woes. Dominic Regan serves up the inside story on this, as well as some particularly thrilling judgments

Rejoice! On 19 March the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill was introduced in the House of Lords (HL Bill 56). Litigation funders and those whom they backed had a fit of the vapours after the Supreme Court judgment last summer in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, [2023] 4 All ER 675. By a majority of four to one it decided that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) in which the fees of the funder were calculated by reference to a cut of the damages recovered were in law damages-based agreements (DBAs). The dissentient was Lady Rose, the one member of the court with first-hand experience of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), having chaired it from 2005 to 2013, and again from 2015 to 2019.

The best-known case funded in

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll