Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with T.J. Wolf, General Counsel & Senior Expert, DisputeSoft
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

May 2, 2024

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Queensland Court Halts Blue Sky Insider Trading Class Action Over $630,000 Security for Costs

The Supreme Court of Queensland has stayed an insider trading class action after ordering the plaintiff to post $630,000 in security for costs across seven defendants, finding there was reason to believe the company could not meet an adverse costs award.

As reported by Insurance Business Australia, the plaintiff, Blue Dog Group, never produced financial statements or management accounts despite repeated requests from the defendants about who was funding the case. The plaintiff's solicitor offered only general assurances that security would be provided "where it ought to do so."

Notably, no litigation funder is involved in the proceeding. That absence is central to the outcome: with no funder standing behind the claim, the defendants' costs exposure ran to the plaintiff company's own balance sheet, which was never disclosed. The court found there was reason to believe Blue Dog could not pay the defendants' costs — a proposition the plaintiff did not seriously contest.

The proceedings have been stayed and disclosure paused until security is posted.

The decision is a reminder that funding transparency cuts both ways. Defendants increasingly press for disclosure of funding arrangements as a route to security applications, and an unfunded corporate plaintiff that declines to open its books may find that silence treated as evidence of impecuniosity. For claimants without institutional backing, the practical effect is that a security order can stop a class action before the merits are reached.

Commercial

KP Law’s £250 Million Binance Group Action Reaches 2,700 Claimants

More than 1,000 additional claimants in England and Wales have joined a group action against cryptocurrency exchange Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao, bringing the total to roughly 2,700 consumers globally. KP Law, which is running the claim, describes it as the first of its kind in the United Kingdom.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the announcement coincided with the Financial Conduct Authority opening its authorisation gateway for the UK's new crypto asset regulatory regime, which comes into force on 25 October 2027. Binance is expected to apply under that regime.

The claim was filed in the High Court in June, and claims issued now exceed £250 million. Claimants allege that Binance sold high-risk leveraged and derivative products — including leverage, futures and options — to UK users without FCA authorisation between late 2019 and early 2020. They contend those products are specified investments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which may only be sold by authorised persons.

Binance has more than 300 million customers worldwide. Individual claimants are reported to have lost sums ranging from tens of thousands to millions of pounds.

KP Law partner Hannah Sharp noted that Binance Markets Limited was barred from carrying on regulated activity in the UK in 2021.

No litigation funder is identified in connection with the claim. Opt-in group actions of this scale nonetheless depend heavily on book-building and costs cover, making the financing arrangements behind the claim a point of interest as the case progresses.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Rail Fares Class Action Decertified After Search for Replacement Class Representative Fails

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has revoked the collective proceedings order in Boyle v Govia Thameslink Railway, ending a claim first filed in 2021. The proceedings had been stayed since June of last year, when original class representative David Courtney Boyle died from Parkinson's disease, and no replacement representative was ever secured.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, a CAT judgment published this month confirms that no new class representative came forward and that the CPO has been revoked. The GTR Collective Proceedings website states the claim was decertified on the basis of a CAT order made in April, and that the site will close shortly.

The failed search for a successor illustrates how dependent opt-out competition claims are on funding and insurance. Walter Merricks CBE announced plans to step into the role in November of last year, but withdrew his application in January after failing to secure after-the-event insurance. In May, he was ordered to make an interim payment of £70,000 towards the defendants' costs.

A costs hearing in the underlying proceedings has been adjourned to the next available date after 6 November.

A GTR spokesperson said: "GTR welcomes the end of the proceedings. We have always been clear that we acted lawfully and fairly towards our passengers."

The outcome underscores the structural fragility of CAT collective actions in which the class representative's position rests on securing adverse costs cover, and the practical difficulty of substituting a representative once a claim has already been stayed.