header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 September 2023 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 8039 / Categories: Opinion , Costs , Litigation funding , Profession
printer mail-detail

The insider: 8 September 2023

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
136501
Landed back to an overwhelming in-tray & a deep sense of autumnal angst? Dominic Regan sets out where best to begin

Now that the summer holidays are over, it is time to address current causes of concern for the civil litigator. What should one worry about? Where would you like to begin?

CAT calling

The Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others ) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 decided that a litigation funding agreement was unlawful. By a majority of four to one (Lady Rose dissenting in exquisite detail), the court found that the funding arrangement was a damages-based agreement (DBA). Section 47C (8) of the Competition Act 1998 states that a DBA ‘is unenforceable if it relates to opt-out collective proceedings’, which these truck cartel claims were. I am indebted yet again to PJ Kirby KC who, despite being on holiday, gave me the benefit of his wisdom. The problem is that all Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) opt-out claims

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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