Frustration is mounting over the UK government's failure to act on reversing the Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision, with former members of the body that reviewed litigation funding warning that prolonged delay is damaging the market and eroding Britain's standing as a global dispute-resolution hub. Nearly three years on from the ruling, no corrective legislation has materialized.

As reported by the Law Society Gazette, Nicholas Bacon KC and Dr John Sorabji, both former members of the Civil Justice Council's working party on litigation funding, voiced sharp disappointment at the lack of progress. Bacon called the inertia "terribly frustrating" and warned that delay leaves cases trapped in satellite litigation, while Sorabji said the 14-month wait was incomprehensible given the urgency the CJC's report stressed and the ongoing market uncertainty.

The PACCAR ruling reclassified many litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements, potentially rendering them unenforceable and triggering a wave of disputes over existing arrangements. The Civil Justice Council's review recommended urgently reversing the decision through retrospective legislation, a recommendation the government accepted, alongside a December 2025 pledge from courts minister Sarah Sackman KC to clarify that funding agreements are not damages-based agreements.

Yet no bill has emerged, and the King's Speech contained no provisions on the issue, with employment minister Kate Dearden recently citing the complexity of the review as justification for further time. Reformers warn that continued inaction risks pushing funded cases and investment toward rival jurisdictions, jeopardizing the UK's competitive advantage in international dispute resolution.

Booking.com is facing a planned £2 billion collective action in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal over the pricing provisions in its contracts with hotels, in a claim financed by litigation funder Balance Legal Capital. The case is the latest example of third-party capital powering large-scale, opt-out consumer claims against major technology platforms.

As reported by MLex, the proposed claim will be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal on behalf of millions of UK consumers, with proposed class representative Chris Warner alleging that buyers have systematically overpaid for hotel and travel accommodation. Total damages are estimated at more than £2 billion, and the claim is expected to be filed at the tribunal soon.

At the heart of the case are the pricing provisions in Booking.com's agreements with hotels, which the claim contends harmed consumers by inflating the prices they paid. Such "price parity" arrangements have drawn sustained competition-law scrutiny across Europe, providing a foundation for follow-on damages claims of the kind now taking shape in the UK.

The case underscores the central role litigation funders continue to play in the UK's collective proceedings regime, where the scale and cost of opt-out claims make outside capital essential. Balance Legal Capital's backing allows a single representative to pursue redress on behalf of millions of consumers who could not realistically litigate individually. The filing also lands amid intensifying debate over the future of funded collective actions in Britain, as reformers press the government to restore certainty to litigation funding agreements in the wake of the PACCAR ruling.