Sign up with your email address to receive analysis of the recent litigation funding cases and cases that are relevant to the practice of dispute resolution finance.
R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others
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.
LS v PS (Rev1) [2021] EWFC 108
This was an application by an intervener, a litigation funder, in financial remedy proceedings for disclosure of material and information which was subject to 'without prejudice' privilege.
Harbour Fund III, LP v Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 1128
In the long-running Kagazy litigation, that commenced in August 2013, the difficulties of enforcement had triggered a number of satellite proceedings, particularly concerning the rights of the funder, Harbour, and the position of the Kazakhstan subsidiary (KK JSC) that was in a form of insolvency in Kazakhstan. Regrettably, Harbour was now the claimant in its own litigation. The case is an uncomfortable read, giving the Court an opportunity to conduct a detailed analysis on a funder’s contractual agreement and also its internal workings and discussions.
Toorani v Toorani [2019] JRC 023
This Jersey case related to the application to discharge a freezing order that had been obtained in support of English proceedings and the extent to which the involvement of litigation funder should be notified to the Court.
Edwardian Group Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2017] EWHC 2805
The fact that a party is funded can be a positive and a negative. It can certainly lead to tactical battles and satellite issues being ventilated. This is not what a funder would wish for, because funders rarely encourage the litigation to be any wider in scope than is strictly necessary – expansive litigation tends to cost more, and take longer.
Wall v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2016] EWHC 2460
This case addresses a key question for both claimant and funder – to what extent can the funding arrangements remain confidential?