Robin Ganguly used to be a litigation funder and insurer, and is now a Partner at elite London disputes law firm CANDEY. Robin has almost 20 years of litigation and arbitration experience. He conducts a broad range of commercial, financial and insolvency disputes and has extensive experience of high-value international cases. Robin acts for large corporates and individuals alike, and is praised by clients for his commercial approach.

Prior to joining CANDEY, Robin spent almost 10 years at Magic Circle firm Linklaters, including secondments at investment bank clients, and four years at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, where he led the contentious insolvency practice alongside his broader commercial litigation role. Robin then spent time at litigation funder Burford Capital and in the litigation insurance industry at Aon and Fidelis. Robin is therefore uniquely well placed to assist clients looking to obtain funding and insurance for their disputes, and to advise on disputes in relation to funding agreements and insurance policies.

Robin speaks French, Italian and Spanish. He is qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and can appear himself for clients before the Higher Courts of England and Wales.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Robin Ganguly:

We often work in collaboration with litigation funders to achieve access to justice for clients who have been defrauded and as a result of the fraud do not have funds to pursue expensive litigation. In those situations we use our deep experience of litigation funding and litigation insurance to put together the best structure for the risks in the case to be allocated among different stakeholders, which often means our firm taking on substantial fee risk.

One of our core practice areas is international trusts disputes. These cases are very challenging because they often involve arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions, co-ordinating local firms, freezing injunctions and other emergency applications to attempt to secure assets for enforcement. These are all expensive processes which rely on a law firm (and sometimes litigation funders) to have faith and stand behind their clients for many years to avoid capitulation to the bad actors. When we achieve success in disputes such as these it makes all of the effort worth it.

Our cases often involve multiple offices (various of London, New York, BVI, Vienna, and we’ve got plans to open in Asia), and our ability to serve clients internationally is a key reason why clients come to us. In New York our team provides a transatlantic bridge between the US law firms with whom we co-counsel, and the CANDEY teams in other locations, but having one firm that’s able to take ownership of as many jurisdictions as possible ensures things run smoothly. Due to the way we are structured we are able to explore international contingency fee arrangements for clients, in a way that very few other firms can do.

At CANDEY we believe that everyone should have the right to legal representation so that they can bring their arguments before a court of law. Many firms will refuse to act on certain cases where they fear “biting the hand that feeds them”, or cases where they do not like the potential impact of being associated with certain claimants or arguments, but we feel that if all firms took those views, clients would not be able to test and enforce their legal rights, with a corresponding chilling effect upon the English legal system more broadly.

CANDEY has been vocal in championing the rule of law and refusing, along with the Bar Council, to allow prejudice to prevent anyone from being represented before the Courts on the basis of their race, religion or nationality.

We have a well-established fraud practice and involvement with organisations such as CFAAR in the UK, and we have been seeing increasing numbers of cryptocurrency disputes. These sometimes concern fraudulent investment schemes and in those cases the catch is often obtaining a “book” of victims that is large enough and organised enough to make a case economically viable for a law firm or funder to back. Building the book costs money so it can be chicken and egg. Due to the international nature of cryptocurrency, the cases frequently involve competing claims on frozen assets by different states or prosecutors and therefore have a political dimension which can be difficult to predict.

The litigation funding market in the UK is experiencing some challenges at the moment. As is the global litigation insurance market (other than ATE) following large losses on complex judgment preservation policies. That makes it increasingly important for law firms to be able to share fee risk, either alongside funders or where funding cannot be obtained. We get a large number of enquiries from clients looking to us to represent them in their cases, big and small, and we are able to use our experience of funding and insurance to be able to advise clients whether the case is likely to attract funding and/or insurance and to put them in the best position to secure it. When enquiries come in, my role can feel very similar to my previous role at Burford Capital: assessing the legal theory and case merits but also looking ahead to enforcement and whether the damages are likely to be large enough to make the case viable. In terms of case type, we always see plenty of shareholder disputes, contract disputes and trust disputes, and those types of claim have not seen the same souring of attitudes or aggregation issues among funders or insurers as, say competition cases.

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October. 

The following article was contributed by Kevin Prior, Chief Commercial Officer of Seven Stars Legal Funding.

On Friday 1^st August 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on car finance commission complaints. While banks avoided the massive £44 billion liability some predicted, one customer called Johnson won his case - and that victory has opened the door for thousands of similar claims totalling somewhere between £9bn and £18bn – still a huge market.

The Bottom Line: Johnson proved his finance deal was "unfair" because:

• The dealer received a massive undisclosed commission (55% of all the interest he paid)
• He was misled about getting independent advice when the dealer was actually tied to one lender
• Important information was hidden in small print

What This Means

The Supreme Court has given us a clear roadmap. Claims will succeed where customers can show:

• Excessive hidden commissions (Johnson's was 55% of his interest payments)
• Poor disclosure - burying commission details in terms & conditions isn't enough
• Misleading sales practices - claiming to offer "best deals" while being tied to one lender
• Pre-2021 agreements often have the strongest cases

Why This Is Good News

• No government bailout risk - the ruling removes fears of political intervention to protect banks
• Clear success criteria - we now know exactly what makes a winning case
• Settlement pressure - lenders know more claims are coming and want to avoid court
• Immediate opportunity - claims can start now without waiting for regulators

Our Position

Our cautious approach to date has been vindicated. While others rushed in with untested legal theories, we waited for clarity. Now we have it.

The car finance opportunity is very much alive - it just requires smarter case selection. We're actively evaluating opportunities and expect to be funding cases that meet the Johnson criteria in the coming weeks.

The FCA will announce their compensation scheme plans in October, but the legal pathway is already clear. Well-selected cases with Johnson-style facts have strong prospects of success.