The short point in this case that is of interest to litigation funding is the revisting of the principles involved in awarding funding costs in arbitration proceedings. The Court held that “the principal issue that the Tribunal needs to decide in relation to the claimed funding costs is whether they are "reasonable" in two respects: as to the principle of the Claimant having recourse to this type of funding and as to the amount." In this instance, the Court considered the approach to funding to be reasonable, even though the funder was owned by one of the claimant’s shareholders. The Court followed its practice to "generally follow a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction unless there is a powerful reason for not doing so" such that the previous decision of the Court upholding a costs award in favour of funding costs was followed. The relevance of this to litigation funding is that it can be expected that such awards will continue to be approved by the Courts unless a case gets to the consideration of the Court of Appeal. The grounds for arbitrations getting to that level of judicial scrutiny are limited and so should be capable of being assessed at the early stages by litigators and funders alike. Commercial arbitration matters therefore continue to be very attractive from a litigation funder’s perspective.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/3301.html