Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Deals Funder's Corner

Litigation Funding in the UAE: WinJustice Leading the Way

By Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har |

The following was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all.

Understanding the UAE’s Legal Landscape

Onshore Jurisdictions

In the UAE’s onshore courts, the legal framework is based on federal laws and elements of Sharia law. While there are no explicit rules prohibiting litigation funding, the absence of clear regulations requires careful navigation. Key considerations include:

  • Principles of Good Faith: Parties must ensure that funding agreements align with the core principles of UAE law and avoid speculative transactions (Gharar).
  • Sharia Compliance: Agreements must balance financial interests with the broader public good (Maslaha), enabling parties to pursue valid claims ethically.

Offshore Jurisdictions

Offshore jurisdictions, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), offer a more structured environment for litigation funding. These jurisdictions follow common law principles and have implemented specific guidelines:

  • DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017: Requires disclosure of funding agreements to promote transparency and grants courts the authority to impose cost orders on funders.
  • ADGM Funding Rules 2019: Ensures that funded parties receive independent legal advice and fosters ethical practices in third-party funding.

WinJustice operates across both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, leveraging its expertise to guide clients through the complexities of litigation funding in the UAE.

How Litigation Funding Benefits UAE Businesses

Litigation funding provides a lifeline for businesses facing high-stakes legal disputes, particularly in sectors like construction, real estate, and finance. Key benefits include:

  1. Access to Justice: Enables businesses to pursue claims without worrying about upfront legal costs.
  2. Risk Mitigation: Shifts the financial burden to the funder, allowing clients to focus on their core operations.
  3. Leveling the Playing Field: Empowers smaller businesses to compete with larger opponents in complex disputes.

The Role of Arbitration in Litigation Funding

Arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution method in the UAE, governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 and updated regulations in the DIFC and ADGM. Notably:

  • Both DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and arbitrateAD guidelines emphasize transparency by requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements.
  • Arbitration proceedings offer a flexible and confidential framework, making them ideal for cases involving third-party funding.

WinJustice specializes in funding arbitration cases, ensuring our clients have the financial support needed to achieve favorable outcomes.

Why WinJustice is the Right Choice

As the pioneer in UAE litigation funding, WinJustice offers:

  • Expert Guidance: Decades of combined experience in navigating UAE’s legal systems.
  • Custom Solutions: Tailored funding arrangements to meet the unique needs of each client.
  • Ethical Standards: Commitment to transparency, fairness, and compliance with UAE regulations.

Whether you are pursuing a commercial dispute, arbitration claim, or high-value litigation, WinJustice provides the financial resources and expertise to secure justice.

Conclusion

Litigation funding is transforming the UAE’s legal landscape, and WinJustice is proud to lead this change. By bridging the gap between justice and affordability, we are enabling businesses and individuals to take control of their legal challenges with confidence.

Visit WinJustice to learn more.

About the author

Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har

Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.