Trending Now
Commercial Deals Funder's Corner

Litigation Funding in the UAE: WinJustice Leading the Way

By Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har |
December 9, 2024

Litigation Funding in the UAE: WinJustice Leading the Way

The following was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all.

Understanding the UAE’s Legal Landscape

Onshore Jurisdictions

In the UAE’s onshore courts, the legal framework is based on federal laws and elements of Sharia law. While there are no explicit rules prohibiting litigation funding, the absence of clear regulations requires careful navigation. Key considerations include:

  • Principles of Good Faith: Parties must ensure that funding agreements align with the core principles of UAE law and avoid speculative transactions (Gharar).
  • Sharia Compliance: Agreements must balance financial interests with the broader public good (Maslaha), enabling parties to pursue valid claims ethically.

Offshore Jurisdictions

Offshore jurisdictions, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), offer a more structured environment for litigation funding. These jurisdictions follow common law principles and have implemented specific guidelines:

  • DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017: Requires disclosure of funding agreements to promote transparency and grants courts the authority to impose cost orders on funders.
  • ADGM Funding Rules 2019: Ensures that funded parties receive independent legal advice and fosters ethical practices in third-party funding.

WinJustice operates across both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, leveraging its expertise to guide clients through the complexities of litigation funding in the UAE.

How Litigation Funding Benefits UAE Businesses

Litigation funding provides a lifeline for businesses facing high-stakes legal disputes, particularly in sectors like construction, real estate, and finance. Key benefits include:

  1. Access to Justice: Enables businesses to pursue claims without worrying about upfront legal costs.
  2. Risk Mitigation: Shifts the financial burden to the funder, allowing clients to focus on their core operations.
  3. Leveling the Playing Field: Empowers smaller businesses to compete with larger opponents in complex disputes.

The Role of Arbitration in Litigation Funding

Arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution method in the UAE, governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 and updated regulations in the DIFC and ADGM. Notably:

  • Both DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and arbitrateAD guidelines emphasize transparency by requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements.
  • Arbitration proceedings offer a flexible and confidential framework, making them ideal for cases involving third-party funding.

WinJustice specializes in funding arbitration cases, ensuring our clients have the financial support needed to achieve favorable outcomes.

Why WinJustice is the Right Choice

As the pioneer in UAE litigation funding, WinJustice offers:

  • Expert Guidance: Decades of combined experience in navigating UAE’s legal systems.
  • Custom Solutions: Tailored funding arrangements to meet the unique needs of each client.
  • Ethical Standards: Commitment to transparency, fairness, and compliance with UAE regulations.

Whether you are pursuing a commercial dispute, arbitration claim, or high-value litigation, WinJustice provides the financial resources and expertise to secure justice.

Conclusion

Litigation funding is transforming the UAE’s legal landscape, and WinJustice is proud to lead this change. By bridging the gap between justice and affordability, we are enabling businesses and individuals to take control of their legal challenges with confidence.

Visit WinJustice to learn more.

About the author

Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har

Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Academics Fact-Check German Business Lobby’s Case for Restricting Litigation Funding

Two competition law academics have published a point-by-point examination of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry's position on collective redress and litigation funding, concluding that several of the central claims advanced in support of tighter restrictions are false, misleading or unsupported.

As set out in a Kluwer Competition Law Blog analysis by Eduardo Silva de Freitas of the Asser Institute and Lena Hornkohl of the University of Vienna, the DIHK statement calls for litigation funders to be brought under supervision comparable to financial market regulation and for funding agreements to be disclosed in full. The authors test five of its underlying assertions.

The DIHK's claim that transparency requirements are lacking is assessed as false: Article 10 of the Representative Actions Directive already establishes disclosure obligations for litigation funding arrangements. The assertion that funders operate in a "nearly unregulated space" is described as misleading, the authors pointing to a European Commission study finding that third-party funding legislation exists in the vast majority of EU member states.

The claim of a widespread consensus that the Directive requires significant improvement is treated as unsupported, with the authors finding no sufficient body of independent studies behind it. The criticism that no minimum registration period applies to qualified entities is called misleading, since Article 4(3)(a) requires 12 months of actual public activity before designation.

The analysis reserves particular attention for the DIHK's figure that funders typically take 20% to 50% of damages. The authors describe this as misleading, noting that German law caps funder remuneration at 10% and that differentiated models operate below that level.

Commercial

Law Firms Turn to MSO Structures to Access Outside Capital and Partner Liquidity

Management services organisations have become a leading route for outside investors to participate in the economics of US law firms without breaching the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership, and the structure is drawing sustained interest from private capital.

As explained in a Nixon Peabody analysis by Allan H. Cohen and Samantha R. Barbere, an MSO is a non-professional entity that provides administrative and support services to a professional practice. The arrangement separates professional ownership from administrative infrastructure: non-licensed investors may own the MSO, while licensed attorneys retain exclusive control of the law firm and all legal work.

The authors identify two principal motivations driving adoption. The first is access to capital, giving firms resources to invest in technology such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at a time of escalating client demands for efficiency. The second is partner liquidity — the bifurcated structure allows partners to monetise the value of their ownership through a sale to non-professional investors, expanding options beyond traditional buyouts and transactions between lawyers.

Execution requires care. Firms must transfer non-professional assets to the MSO and enter into an administrative services agreement governing the relationship. Critically, fees paid to the MSO must reflect fair market value for the services provided, rather than a percentage of revenue, in order to comply with the fee-splitting prohibition in ABA Model Rule 5.4(a).

For the litigation finance market, the structure matters because it represents a parallel channel for outside capital to reach the legal services sector — one that competes with, and in some cases complements, case-level and portfolio funding as a means of financing law firm growth.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Class Action Collapses After Funding and Insurance Fall Through

A long-running opt-out collective action against Govia Thameslink Railway has come to an end after the claim failed to secure a replacement class representative backed by adequate funding and insurance, marking one of the more consequential funding-driven failures in the Competition Appeal Tribunal's collective proceedings regime.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the claim has collapsed as a result of funding problems. The proceedings, certified in October 2022, alleged pricing discrimination in the operator's fare structure on behalf of rail passengers.

The claim was left without a class representative following the death of David Boyle, who had brought the action. Walter Merricks, best known for leading the Mastercard collective action, applied to take over the role but withdrew in January 2026 after being unable to obtain after-the-event insurance for the proceedings.

That withdrawal carried its own consequences. As reported by the Law Society Gazette, the Tribunal ordered interim payments totalling £70,000 — £45,000 to the defendants and £25,000 to the estate — finding it "beyond argument" that reasonable costs incurred should be borne by Merricks and his funder, Litigation Capital Management. The Tribunal considered the £337,695 originally claimed to be excessive.

With the proceedings stayed, the Tribunal set a deadline of 4pm on 24 July for an application to approve a suitable replacement class representative, failing which the collective proceedings order would be revoked and the claim decertified.

The outcome underscores how tightly the viability of UK collective proceedings is bound to the availability of funding and ATE cover, and how quickly a certified claim can unravel when either becomes unobtainable.