This case represents one of a number of funder-backed cases that have reached the Supreme Court, in itself a development of concern to funders. A litigation funder never wishes to see a case it funds having to be litigated all the way to the highest Court, but it is often the price to be paid for funding claims that are novel and potentially hugely significant and profitable.

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.