High Court Judge Rules that Anonymous Funder’s Identity is Relevant in Webster v HMRC
The issue of disclosure in regards to litigation funding has been most associated, in recent years, with patent infringement litigation in the United States, as defendants and judges have probed the nature of the financiers backing lawsuits. However, an ongoing case in the High Court has brought this issue to light in a very different manner, after a claimant said that even they did not know the identity of their litigation funder. Reporting by International Tax Review highlights the case of Webster v HMRC in the High Court, where Justice Rowena Collins Rice ruled against the claimant’s application to strike out an abuse of process defense, over HMRC’s attempts to identify Webster’s litigation funder. Jennifer Webster, the claimant in the case, has stated that she does not know who is funding her case, as the funder has only backed the claim on the condition that its identity remains anonymous and would withdraw from the litigation if its identity was made public. According to the judge’s ruling, Mishcon de Reya, the law firm representing Webster, are aware of the litigation funder’s identity. The ruling came about after HMRC successfully sought a court order to force the claimant to disclose their funder’s identity, which led Webster’s legal team to attempt to have this defence struck out. In her ruling, Justice Collins Rice explained that the funder’s identity was relevant as it addresses concerns over this mystery financier’s motivations for the case. The judge stated: “Funder identity goes, on HMRC’s case, to the core issue of whether this is a genuine private law claim, albeit a test case, generously funded by a disinterested and publicity-shy benefactor with a commitment to human rights, or whether the court’s processes are being abused by an unregulated attack, on a government department exercising statutory public functions in the public interest, made in the service of agencies whose own commitment to the UK public interest, and the interests of justice, is unapparent.” Commenting on the judgement, Dan Neidle, director of Tax Policy Associates, argued that despite the judge’s ruling being “very strange”, it was unlikely that the claimant would be successful if they appealed the decision. As for the mystery funder’s reasons for seeking anonymity, Neidle suggested that it could be a benign motivation or “possibly something more sinister: a person with something to hide, using this litigation to block the rules that prevent its secrets from being uncovered”.
