Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

New Zealand family law practices are increasingly treating third-party funding as a core part of their business model rather than a last resort, as firms look to convert uncertain and delayed fee recovery into secured, predictable revenue. The shift reflects a broader migration of litigation finance into the consumer and family-law space, where client liquidity — not the merits of a matter — often dictates whether a case proceeds.

As reported by LawFuel, Australian-based family law funder JustFund, which launched in New Zealand last year, has now approved close to NZ$5 million in funding across 92 accredited firms, with its loan book growing 36% in the most recent quarter. Once funding is approved, invoices are paid within 24 hours, shifting the financial risk of delayed settlements away from the firm.

The model assesses funding against expected property settlements, a structure suited to family disputes where assets exist but remain locked up until resolution. New Zealand recorded 7,887 divorces in 2025, up 5% on the prior year, underscoring steady demand.

Lauren Milne, JustFund's Director of Family Law, said firms are increasingly "bringing funding into matters earlier, embedding it into client onboarding rather than waiting for payment issues to emerge." The trend points to a maturing market in which funding is positioned not as a rescue mechanism for distressed matters but as standard infrastructure for managing a practice's cashflow — even among clients whose income belies their short-term capacity to pay.

The English High Court has ruled that communications generated to secure third-party funding are not shielded by litigation privilege, a decision that sharpens the disclosure risks facing funded claimants and the funders who back them. The ruling came in the long-running £300 million-plus claim brought by some 13,000 black-cab drivers against Uber, which alleges the company misrepresented its business model to Transport for London.

As reported by Legal Futures, Mr Justice Birt rejected arguments that documents passing between the claimants' solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, their litigation funder, and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association were covered by litigation privilege. Uber had sought disclosure of materials created between late 2017 and October 2018 — before the claimants had formally instructed solicitors — and the court agreed they were disclosable.

Central to the judgment was a distinction the court drew between a party assessing its own potential claim, which attracts privilege, and a funder evaluating whether to support someone else's litigation, which does not. The documents' dominant purpose, the judge found, was to enable a funding decision rather than to conduct litigation. As one firm observing the case put it, "the decision to fund litigation is not itself conduct of litigation."

The practical implications are significant. Defendants in group actions may now gain access to early communications that reveal what claimants knew, and when, while prospective litigants are being urged to weigh carefully what information they share with funders before a claim is formally underway.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that major corporate class members in the £13.6 billion Ad Tech Collective Action against Google can be compelled to participate actively in the litigation, a decision that reshapes expectations about what "passive" membership in a funded class action entails. The funded claim alleges that Google abused its dominance across the advertising-technology supply chain to the detriment of online publishers.

As reported by Tech Times, the Tribunal drew a deliberate line between small, genuinely passive beneficiaries and large institutional publishers with the resources and organizational capacity to produce relevant documents. For the latter group, the ruling holds, class membership is not a shield against disclosure obligations — they may be required to contribute to the evidentiary record despite not being named claimants.

The action is brought by Ad Tech Collective Action LLP, led by former Ofcom director Claudio Pollack, and is backed by a subsidiary of litigation funder Fortress, meaning class members bear no direct financial risk. The claim is represented by Hausfeld, Humphries Kerstetter, and Geradin Partners.

The decision matters for the economics of large funded opt-out claims: greater disclosure burdens on sizeable class members could affect case management, cost, and participation incentives in future collective actions. The Tribunal has listed the trial for September 2028, with a hearing expected to run twelve weeks.

Manolete Partners, the AIM-listed specialist in insolvency litigation finance, has reported a record year across several operational metrics for the twelve months ended March 31, 2026, even as realised revenue dipped and its share price slid. The funder, which finances claims pursued by insolvency practitioners in exchange for a share of recoveries, framed the results as the foundation for an ambitious next phase of growth.

As reported by Legal Futures, Manolete logged an all-time high of 1,027 case referrals, up 15%, and ended the year with 446 live cases and a forward book valued at £67 million — a 37% increase year-on-year. The proportion of larger claims grew, with cases expected to generate £500,000 or more accounting for £32 million of the forward book, up from £21 million. Average claim value rose to £158,000 from £124,000.

Realised revenue fell 6.5% to £28 million, but gross margin improved five percentage points to 37%, and a single truck-cartel settlement returned £3.2 million — a 560% return on the cash invested. Profit before tax margin remained thin at 0.4%.

Chief Executive Mena Halton, who took the role in August 2025, said the company "strengthened our team and new business development function to support the next phase of growth." Manolete set medium-term targets including realised revenue of £42 million and a 12% profit-before-tax margin, signaling confidence in the depth of the UK insolvency litigation market despite the stock's decline to 36p.

Australian companies face a class action landscape increasingly shaped by events beyond their borders, according to new analysis warning that overseas litigation, foreign regulatory activity, and global litigation funding flows now operate as leading indicators of claims that later emerge at home. For boards and executives, the message is that domestic precedent alone no longer defines exposure.

As reported by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, plaintiff firms are explicitly modeling Australian claims on foreign proceedings — in one instance announcing it was "investigating how an Australian claim could be run" following a U.S. technology ruling. The pattern spans medical products, automotive, and technology, with expansion anticipated into privacy, data, cyber, and climate-related disputes.

Foreign regulatory enforcement frequently acts as the catalyst. When overseas regulators scrutinize issues such as PFAS contamination or particular medications, Australian plaintiff firms often follow, leveraging the country's flexible consumer protection framework to build comparable claims.

Litigation funding plays a central role in this dynamic, with capital moving across jurisdictions to balance risk and return. The analysis notes that recent Australian court decisions — including rulings on common fund orders and confirmation of soft class closure — are expected to attract greater global funding capacity, potentially increasing both the volume and the resourcing of claims.

The practical takeaway for senior decision-makers is to monitor international developments proactively. Understanding overseas litigation strategies, regulatory priorities, and funding trends has become essential to anticipating exposure before Australian proceedings materialize.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has certified a £3 billion collective claim against Apple, allowing one of the country's largest consumer actions to proceed toward trial. The case, brought by consumer group Which?, alleges that Apple abused its dominant position in the iOS ecosystem by unlawfully favoring its own iCloud service over competing cloud storage providers.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, the tribunal certified the proceeding on June 25, 2026, sweeping in roughly 39 million UK consumers who used iCloud between November 2018 and June 2026. The opt-out structure means eligible UK residents are automatically included, while non-UK residents from the relevant period may opt in by October 8, 2026. Successful class members could recover up to £77 each, with trial scheduled for October 2028.

Which?, acting as class representative, has the backing of Litigation Capital Management's UK subsidiary, which is funding the claim. Notably, the tribunal dismissed Apple's objections to that funding arrangement — a point of continued significance as UK courts refine the rules governing third-party finance in the wake of the PACCAR decision.

Apple rejected the allegations, stating that it "rejected any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive" and pointing to "plenty of alternatives to choose from." The certification marks another milestone for funder-backed collective actions in the UK, where well-capitalized consumer claims against major technology platforms continue to test the limits of competition law.

Pogust Goodhead has lined up fresh capital and elite co-counsel for the next phase of its landmark claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil — one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts. The firm announced $150 million in new funding from Gramercy Funds Management, with an initial $85 million tranche, alongside a strategic partnership with U.S. litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel.

As reported by The Global Legal Post, Quinn Emanuel will join as co-counsel for the quantum phase of proceedings, led by partner Justin Michelson and beginning in October 2026. The injection of funding and firepower comes as the case shifts from establishing liability to determining how much BHP must pay claimants.

The litigation has already cleared significant hurdles. In November 2025, Justice O'Farrell ruled BHP "strictly liable" for the Fundão dam failure, and the Court of Appeal rejected BHP's bid to challenge that finding in March 2026. Pogust Goodhead has secured an interim costs award of roughly £43 million, with claimants awarded 90% of their Stage 1 costs.

The road ahead remains long. The Stage 1 quantum trial is set for October 2026, with further proceedings on causation, loss, and damages scheduled across 2027 and closing submissions expected in March 2028. Damages assessments could extend well beyond 2030, underscoring both the scale of the claim and the staying power that third-party capital provides.

Omni Bridgeway, one of the world's largest legal finance providers, has released new content underscoring the specialized expertise required to fund international arbitration — disputes that frequently span multiple jurisdictions, legal systems, and languages. The piece positions the funder's cross-border capabilities as central to navigating an increasingly complex global disputes market.

According to Omni Bridgeway, funding international arbitration effectively demands a combination of "global expertise and local knowledge." The firm — listed on the ASX with 24 offices worldwide — points to a team that includes former arbitration lawyers and litigators, arbitrators, leaders of arbitral institutions, and business users of arbitration as the basis for its claim to be a global leader in the space.

The content emphasizes capabilities that distinguish arbitration finance from domestic litigation funding: risk assessment across multiple jurisdictions, cultural and multilingual fluency, and access to worldwide professional networks. Each reflects the reality that an arbitration award secured in one forum may still require enforcement efforts in several others before a funder or claimant sees a return.

While the material is promotional in nature, it reflects a broader trend: rising demand for capital and risk-sharing in cross-border disputes as international arbitration continues to grow. For claimants weighing whether to pursue complex multinational claims, the involvement of specialized funders increasingly shapes which cases move forward — and how far they can be pressed.

A court filing in the bankruptcy of Montgomery-based Jackson Hospital reveals that, under a joint prosecution and funding agreement, litigation funders and lawyers would be paid ahead of the hospital itself if its lawsuit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama produces a settlement. The arrangement offers an unusually clear public window into how a funded litigation recovery can be distributed.

As reported by Alabama Daily News, Jackson Hospital filed for bankruptcy and sued Blue Cross, arguing that only higher insurance reimbursement rates can keep the facility open. Its current operations are financed through a debtor-in-possession loan from Jackson Investment Group (JIG).

According to the agreement, any settlement proceeds would follow a strict waterfall: first, JIG's legal expenses; second, repayment of JIG's investment, including accrued and unpaid interest; and only then a split of what remains, with 70% directed to Jackson Hospital Corporation for its obligations to JIG and 30% to a nonprofit of JIG's choosing. The hospital itself effectively ranks third in the payment hierarchy.

The structure highlights a recurring tension in litigation finance: a courtroom victory does not always translate into the outcome a funded party most needs — here, the survival of the hospital. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Hawkins has scheduled a status hearing for June 30, leaving the ultimate distribution, and the hospital's future, unresolved.