The security for costs orders that were made by the Court in the Ingenious litigation, which had the effect of the funder having to put up a good deal of security, included a cross undertaking in damages, but only in respect of external costs that were incurred by the funder. The issue of the correct approach to cross-undertakings was decided in this case following appeals by both the claimants and the defendants.

The case comes out of an underlying claim which had led to an award of damages of $152m in favour of Singularis. It concerns a funder’s attempt to increase its recovery consequent upon the successful claim and involved having a good look at the fine print of the funding agreement.

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.

This case concerns the extent of the duties (if any) owed by solicitors who conduct funded litigation to those who provide the litigation funding. It is an important case because the funding agreements regularly include references to how solicitors are to deal with funders and yet ultimate control of the litigation always remains with the solicitors.

The nightmare scenario for a litigation funder is that the funder itself ends up in litigation, and the original claimant is nowhere to be seen.

This complex hearing involved 6 leading counsel which highlights the costs that were being run up. The claimants sought a cost-sharing order, whilst the defendants sought security for costs.

The claimants had in this case successfully established a very substantial fraud claim. As well as a $300m judgment, there was an £8m interim payment ordered on account of costs. Nothing had been paid. This time it was the turn of the successful claimants to seek a non-party costs order, using the same Court rules that normally are used against the funders.

As had been expected for a number of years, a full-blown challenge was always going to be made to the Arkin cap. This case presented the golden opportunity since it was a case where the defendants, professional office-holders, were successful in defending substantial claims brought against them by Ms Davey who had been funded in her litigation.

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.