This case goes back to 2014, and the claimant died unexpectedly in 2019. The application concerned the efforts of the claimant’s solicitors to be substituted as claimant, pursuant to an assignment that the claimant made before he died. The defendant objected to the assignment on the grounds of champerty.

One of the dangers of funding financial remedy litigation is that the atmosphere of animosity leads to applications concerning the funding arrangements. In this case, an attempt was made to scupper the proceedings by prohibiting the wife from instructing lawyers funded from monies paid by Burford Capital on the basis that the funding arrangements were contrary to public policy against champerty.

The claimant in this case was a company that built consumer group actions online. It did this by entering into claim purchase agreements whereby it took an assignment of the consumers’ claims. It then aggregated the claims and brought them in its own name. As a business model, it was a model that could be suited to the commercial litigation funding industry. Naturally, therefore, funders were interested in the outcome.

One of the challenges for a litigation funder has been the extent to which it can step into a litigant’s shoes. The law on third parties’ involvement in litigation – which is of course what litigation funding is all about – is complex.