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.

The underlying arbitration between Progas and Pakistan was conducted under the UNICTRAL rules. The tribunal issued an award finding against the claimants on causation grounds. It also found against the claimant on numerous other grounds as well. Costs were awarded in the defendant’s favour in the amount of c £8m. The claimant then alleged s68 serious irregularity and issued fresh proceedings in the English Court. The defendant sought security for costs of the s68 proceedings and an order that monies should be paid into Court in respect of the costs of the arbitration.

In very long running Consumer Protection Act proceedings concerning the anti-depressant drug Seroxat, GSK issued an application for security for costs against the claimants’ litigation funder, Managed Legal Solutions (MLS).

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.

Litigation funders have undeniably fuelled the rise in competition litigation. The first case to reach the certification hearing was the Merricks case which was a collective action against Mastercard. It has almost single-handedly chartered the course for claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Further to the March 2017 decision in the RBS Rights Issue Litigation that opened the door for RBS to ascertain who the funders were (Hunnewell Partners and LNCP), RBS sought security for costs against them.