The reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Paccar  has been swift and diverse. Is it doomsday or is it just a judgment to file away to read on a rainy day? The suggestion that the decision has taken the industry by surprise does not chime with the reality that funders are sophisticated folk who are in the business of predicting outcomes. Anyone who attended the hearing in February will have appreciated the significant risk of an unhelpful decision.

This case concerned the important point as to whether funding agreements entered into with claimants by third parties who play no part in the conduct of the litigation, but whose remuneration is fixed as a share of the damages recovered by the client, are damages-based agreements (DBAs) within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The consequences of a positive finding would be that most agreements would be unenforceable.

Although this is case does not involve a litigation funder, it is an important case in relation to litigation funding via Damages Based Agreements (DBAs). For a considerable period of time, solicitors were concerned about DBAs because they appeared very much to be all or nothing.