Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

By Tom Webster |
August 18, 2025

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

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. 

About the author

Tom Webster

Tom Webster

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.