header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 November 2022 / Roger Smith
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Opinion , Litigation funding , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Third-party funding—regulation needed?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
100256
It’s time to acknowledge that law, justice & the courts are being commoditised, says Roger Smith

Surprise, surprise. Third-party litigation funders and their associated lawyers are not too keen on regulatory proposals proceeding through the European Union (see ’Tough enough?’, NLJ, 21 October 2022, p20). The proposals were backed in September by the European Parliament. Brexit was, of course, intended to protect the UK from this sort of outrageous intrusion by the ‘nanny state’. But, even here and in the US, EU backing for statements such as ‘When litigation funders provide financing for legal proceedings in exchange for a share of any compensation awarded, a risk of injustice can arise’ might give rise to a chilling effect on a rapidly burgeoning market. Hence, the concern.

Heavyweight considerations

Third-party litigation funding has rather crept up on us. Lawyers are still practising (just) for whom the old prohibitions on maintenance and champerty formed part of their qualifying legal education. These were only abolished in 1967 after 500 years. Subsequent progress has been

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