Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Town Hall on How Litigation Funders Should Respond to the UK Supreme Court Ruling

Wednesday, August 9th, LFJ hosted a panel of UK-based litigation funding experts who discussed the recent UK Supreme Court decision, and the potential impacts on the funding industry. The expert panel included: Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Neil Johnstone (NJ), Barrister at King’s Bench Chambers, and Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director at LionFish. The panel was moderated by Peter Petyt (PP), Founder and CEO of 4 Rivers Services.

PP: How does this ruling impact the enforceability of LFAs in current, ongoing cases?  And what about LFAs from previously funded and concluded cases?  

NRD:  It has a pretty big impact.  First of all, the existing arrangements between clients and litigation funders are going to come under scrutiny, because the lawyers acting for clients are going to have to review their positions. This is not a decision which is making new law, this is a statement of existing law as it has always been, so that review will have to be dealt in the light of the decision.

The bigger impact is going to be on concluded cases. That may cause some difficulties. I’m already hearing that there are ongoing discussions on matters that have already concluded, where an agreement that provided for a percentage to be paid to the funder is now being discussed as to whether it should have been paid. That is going to be a distraction, it is going to be an ongoing issue, and I suspect that there will be opportunistic attempts on the part of defendants, in terms of challenging existing litigation funding agreements. So how that concludes, one can only guess, but the reality is, it’s a distraction and disruption, and will be an ongoing issue.

PP: Tets, you’re running a fund. You’ve concluded agreements, you’ve got ongoing agreements. How are you proposing to deal with all of this? 

TI: Ultimately we are in the business of funding litigation cases, so the world goes on. We can’t stop doing it just on the basis of what may be a speculative risk. What we’re trying to understand here, is the key risks we have. In terms of our book, we don’t have any percentage share of the awards, in relation to proceedings in the CAT. So we’re safe in that regard. But in terms of enforceability, there are some agreements that we’ve had to refute. But obviously, that’s a commercial conversation, and the reality is, people are generally appreciative that they’ve got funding, not ungrateful, so there’s a lot of cooperation.

I agree with Nick that generally speaking, the ongoing cases and cases going forward are more manageable. The big distraction will be the concluded cases. My position is slightly more nuanced than Nick’s, in that I think it is a distraction, but I think it’s going to be far less of a risk, partly because the reality is that a lot of funding agreements are entered into in the first place with the purpose of helping claimants that are impecunious. If the claimants have got damages out of it, they are certainly very grateful. Granted, there are some who may not have gotten as much as they wanted because of funding arrangements. But there is the fact that they’ve gone through a very long litigation process. If it was all about money, then some might very well pursue that course of action. But the reality is, most will think twice about going after a funder, and if they do, the chances are that they’ll probably need funding anyway. So if they have to go back to funders, only funders with no interest or claims or willingness to back the industry in the UK would fund those claims. So I think it’s more of a distraction than a real risk.

PP: Do you see any consolidation or direct impacts on the consolidation piece, from this judgement? 

NJ: I suspect there will be anyway. This comes at a time that is difficult for all funders given the larger macro-environment. This comes at unfortunate timing. However, the hardest knives are forged in the hottest fires. I do think you will see not just consolidation within the industry, but funders looking at where they can best add value, such as portfolio funding or other strategies, so they have a proper niche within the market.

Overall, it’s not terminal for the industry by any stretch. It is a bump in the road that is inherent in any growing industry. But I do think that regulatory clarity would help the industry a lot. There is a lot of useful ammunition for ILFA in Lady Rose’s dissenting judgement and in previous judicial comments making well-worded judicial criticism of the legislative patchwork we have in the UK. And I think there could be a very good argument to put forth to a government that I hope could be sympathetic to wishing this industry continues. London is a legal and financial capital of the world, and this industry sits at that nexus. So long term, there is nothing to particularly worry about.

To listen to the full panel discussion, please click here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

LPF Group Appoints Former High Court Judge as Director

By Harry Moran |

In an announcement released earlier this week by LPF Group, the New Zealand litigation funder revealed that it had strengthened its board with the appointment of Judge Robert Dobson KC as a director. Mr Dobson brings a wealth of experience as both a commercial lawyer and judge, having served on the High Court from 2007 to 2020. Mr Dobson briefling returned to the bench as an acting judge on the Court of Appeal in 2022, before returning to his arbitration and mediation practice at Stout Street Chambers.

Phil Newland, founder and director of LPF, said “LPF is delighted to have Mr Dobson, a proven jurist with substantial legal and judicial experience join the board at such an important time for the development of class action law in New Zealand.”

Commenting on his new role, Mr Dobson stated: “Having observed LPF’s role from a different perspective for many years I now look forward to playing a part in continuing the development of litigation funding and assisting access to justice. I am very much looking forward to joining LPF in helping meritorious cases attract funding in the pursuit of justice.”

In addition to the appointment of Mr Dobson, LPF also stated that the company’s current Chairman, Bill Wilson KC, will be moving to the position of Emeritus Chair to provide continuing support to the funder’s board. Newland praised Wilson’s work during his time at LPF by saying “With Bill’s strong support LPF has assisted many thousands of New Zealanders to achieve redress, including in leading cases such as Mainzeal, Kiwifruit and in the recent CBL and Intueri shareholder class actions.”

Commercial Regulatory Issues

CAT Chairman: “Funding is Essential” for Collective Proceedings Success

By Harry Moran |

Following the publication of the Civil Justice Council’s interim report on litigation funding, industry leaders and experts have opined on the future direction of UK’s funding market. At a recent industry conference, attendees were treated to the views of the head of one of the country’s most important judicial bodies when it comes to litigation funding.

Reporting by CDR covers remarks delivered by Andrew Lenon KC, chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) at the Global Class Actions Symposium. The keynote speech on the second day of the symposium saw Lenon discuss the current state of the CAT and the involvement of third-party funding, which he described as “essential to the success of the collective proceedings regime.”

Lenon noted that despite the period of uncertainty in the initial aftermath of the PACCAR decision, he suggested that “it seems likely that the UK market for litigation funding and collective proceedings will continue to grow.” Furthermore, Lenon argued that in this growth environment, the result would be the emergence of a “fully functioning competitive market for litigation funding.”

The CAT’s chairman emphasised the tribunal’s role “to clarify the legal principles relating to funding arrangements”, with a focus on ensuring that “collective proceedings do not become a cash cow to funders and lawyers, with minimal returns to class members.” However, in a welcome nod to funders and lawyers alike, Lenon assured that the CAT “will be slow to interfere with funding arrangements freely negotiated between funders and class representatives.”

Whilst he acknowledged that the CAT must keep a close eye to ensure that funder’s fees and legal costs do not spiral out of control, Lenon agreed that it was “entirely legitimate for funders to seek a return on their investment.” In summarising the CAT’s position on interfering with litigation funding agreements, Lenon said that “the tribunal should therefore be slow to second guess.”

Case Developments Commercial

Which? Files £3 Billion Cloud Claim Against Apple, Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

The growth of multinational technology corporations has provided years of product innovation and a mass availability of affordable consumer electronics. However, the resulting monopolies that have risen to dominate these markets have also created space for the potential for anti-competitive behaviour that harms consumers. In this environment, it is unsurprising we are seeing more and more claims being brought against these tech giants, with the legal proceedings supported by third-party litigation funders.

An article in TechCrunch covers the announcement of a new collective action being brought against Apple by the UK consumer rights group Which?, representing up to 40 million consumers over allegations that Apple breached competition law by overcharging users of the iCloud service. The opt-out proceedings, valued at approximately £3 billion, claims that Apple abused its monopoly position to favour iCloud over competing cloud storage providers and locking in customers to the iCloud services, thereby preventing them from switching to a competitor and enabling Apple to charge increasingly higher fees.

The application for certification was filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 November 2024, with the claim seeking to represent any UK consumer who used an iOS device or iCloud services from 1 October 2025 onwards. This nine year time period is particularly relevant as it follows the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act from that date. The claims is being funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), with litigation risk insurance having been secured to cover Apple’s legal costs if the claim is not successful

More information about the collective proceedings can be found on the Cloud Claim website.

In response to this new legal action being brought, Apple spokesperson Tom Parker provided the following statement: “Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible — whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”