Civil Justice Council Recommends "Light Touch" Regulation of Litigation Funding in United Kingdom

Jones Day

The Civil Justice Council ("CJC") has published its final report, recommending that the UK government regulate litigation funding and pass legislation to enable funders to be remunerated by way of a percentage of any damages recovered in the litigation.

The report contains 58 recommendations, which would require legislation and new court rules if they are to be enacted.

Key recommendations include:

Reversal of PACCAR

Legislation should be passed to reverse the effects of the UK Supreme Court's decision in R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, to enable funders to be remunerated based on a percentage of any damages recovered in the litigation.

Funder Returns

No statutory cap on funder returns.

Costs Recovery

In exceptional cases, funded litigants should be permitted to recover funding costs from their opponents. Funders should continue to be potentially liable for third-party adverse costs orders.

Disclosure

The name of the funder and the source of funds should be disclosed to the court and the parties. Disclosure of funding terms should not be the norm.

"Light Touch" Regulation

All forms of litigation funding (apart from funding of arbitral proceedings) should be subject to "light touch" statutory regulation, which should:

  • Impose case-specific capital adequacy requirements;
  • Ensure anti-money laundering regulations apply to litigation funders; and
  • Codify the prohibition on litigation funders directly or indirectly controlling the conduct or settlement of litigation.

The CJC considers that these requirements obviate the need for security for costs, which should not generally be available against a funder that has complied with capital adequacy requirements and has suitable after-the-event ("ATE") insurance in place.

Enhanced Regulation for Funding Group Actions and Consumer Claims

  • Court approval of funding terms (including whether the funder's return is fair, just, and reasonable);
  • Funded party to receive clear, simple, and transparent information about funding terms, and independent legal advice from King's Counsel;
  • Certification by the funder and the funded party's lawyers that neither of them had approached the funded party to pursue the claim/funding—i.e., the funded party sought the legal representation and funding;
  • Mandatory costs budgeting and costs management for all funded group actions; and
  • Requirement for ATE insurance with robust anti-avoidance endorsements.

If implemented, the CJC's recommendations would reshape the litigation funding landscape in the United Kingdom, with the intention of enhancing access to justice while addressing concerns about the effectiveness of the current regulatory approach.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Jones Day

Written by:

Jones Day
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Jones Day on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide