A new salvo in the UK’s collective actions saga puts third-party funding in the spotlight. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has criticized aspects of mass-consumer practices—specifically around funding and referral fees—raising uncomfortable questions for claimant firms and their financial backers. The latest flashpoint again involves Innsworth, the funder behind the long-running Mastercard litigation brought by class representative Walter Merricks CBE, where wrangling over settlement distribution and funder economics has spilled into public view.

An article in The Times reports that the watchdog sees “poor practices” in parts of the market and notes escalating tensions tied to the £200 million Mastercard settlement—well below the claim’s original £14 billion headline—prompting Innsworth’s threatened action over the deal’s terms. The piece underscores the funding dynamics now woven into virtually every major UK mass claim, from opt-out competition cases to data-privacy suits; the SRA’s framing suggests a harder regulatory edge on fee flows and governance in arrangements that align firms, funders and marketing affiliates.

Beyond the immediate case drama, two structural trends are converging. First, post-PACCAR contract examination has left funders and class reps renegotiating economics and disclosure with tribunals watching closely. Second, political and judicial appetite for “light-touch” oversight (rather than price caps) remains in flux, even as market size and claimant outreach expand.

If the SRA proceeds from cautionary statements to targeted enforcement, firms may re-paper referral arrangements and introduce additional ring-fencing around funder influence to avoid conflicts.

Pogust Goodhead has emphatically denied that it is controlled by litigation funders, insisting it retains full “forensic independence” in the high‑profile claim over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse.

As LFJ recently reported, the class action firm, representing hundreds of thousands of victims in a potential £36 billion lawsuit against mining giant BHP, is under scrutiny following the recent ousting of its co‑founder and chief executive, Tom Goodhead, at the behest of its primary financier, Gramercy Funds Management.

An article in The Law Society Gazette reports that Pogust Goodhead maintains it enjoys “forensic independence” from its principal backer. Opponents—including BHP and its counsel, Slaughter and May—have raised serious concerns about governance, questioning whether Gramercy now exerts undue influence over strategic decisions—an arrangement that could run foul of English and Welsh rules reserving case control for qualified lawyers.

In response, Pogust Goodhead reiterated that it remains “fully independent, with complete control over the strategy and direction of every case” and that its renewed governance structures strengthen its capacity to act in its clients’ best interests. Gramercy, for its part, denied any ownership or management control of the firm.

Looking ahead, this unfolding governance dispute raises critical questions for the future of litigation funding: How will courts view funder-linked control over claimant law firms? Could the outcome limit or reshape access-to-justice models reliant on third-party financing? As this case nears a key ruling, the legal funding industry may be on the cusp of a regulatory watershed.