In a pivotal decision likely to reshape Singapore’s litigation finance landscape, the country’s High Court has affirmed that third-party funding is permissible beyond its historically narrow confines. The judgment, delivered in DNQ v DNR (2025), broadens legal finance's potential use in civil cases unrelated to insolvency or arbitration, marking a significant milestone in the jurisdiction’s approach to access-to-justice tools.

An article on Burford Capital's blog notes that the case involved a claimant pursuing enforcement in Singapore of a £31 million UK family court award. Facing financial hardship, the claimant secured funding from a professional litigation financier. The defendant moved to strike out the case, arguing the arrangement violated public policy by being champertous. But the court disagreed.

Presiding Senior Judge Tan Siong Thye upheld the funding agreement, finding it did not offend the principles of justice or procedural fairness under the Vanguard test. Crucially, the judge ruled that statutory reforms to Singapore’s Civil Law Act did not negate common law exceptions that allow for such funding arrangements.

The court outlined three factors favoring the agreement: the claimant’s lack of resources absent funding, the reasonableness of the funder’s return (potentially up to 56%), and the claimant’s continued control over litigation strategy. The judgment also clarifies that litigation funding is not confined to the specific scenarios listed under section 5B of the Civil Law Act, such as insolvency or arbitration, thus opening the door to broader use in commercial disputes.

This decision signals increasing judicial acceptance of litigation finance in Singapore’s courts and is likely to embolden funders exploring opportunities in the region. As jurisdictions around the world re-evaluate the role of third-party funding, Singapore’s High Court appears poised to join a growing chorus endorsing its value in supporting equitable legal outcomes.

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has allowed Fair Civil Justice (FCJ) to intervene in the “Boundary Fares” collective action against Stagecoach South Western Trains—a case backed by Woodsford—squarely over who should receive any undistributed settlement funds. The class representative, Justin Gutmann, and funder Woodsford opposed the move, arguing FCJ’s stance risks cutting across the court-approved settlement framework and the interests of the class.

An article in CDR reports that FCJ now has permission to submit recommendations on distribution of unclaimed sums, a question that has taken on outsized importance amid slower-than-expected claims uptake. FCJ’s position emphasizes directing residual money away from claimant-side costs and toward consumer-benefiting destinations, including the Access to Justice Foundation or similar channels. The CAT’s permission gives the tribunal a counterpoint to submissions from the class representative, funder, ATE insurers and others, as it calibrates how to treat non-ringfenced amounts after the claims window closes.

Woodsford’s objection underscores the commercial stakes: the tribunal’s approach to residuals could inform how future CAT settlements structure non-ringfenced buckets, adverse costs protection, and any funder fees—particularly in cases where outreach yields limited direct compensation to class members.