F - Funding
25/3/24
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG [2024] EWHC 695 (KB)
Considers principles to be applied on an application under CPR r.31.22 to restrain collateral use of documents disclosed in proceedings. On the facts the application based on commercial sensitivity was not sufficiently focussed and was rejected. The court also considered an application for disclosure of the claimants’ funding arrangements [34] but decided that the application should be revisited after exchange of costs budgets and other information.
22/6/20
SINGULARIS HOLDINGS LTD v CHAPELGATE CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LTD [2020] EWHC 1616 (Ch)
On its prior interpretation, a litigation funding agreement did not provide for reductions to damages for contributory negligence to be disregarded in assessing sums payable to the funder by the successful claimant.
25/2/20
CHAPELGATE CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LTD v MONEY [2020] EWCA Civ 246
The trial judge had been entitled to exercise his discretion to hold that on the facts of the case the liability of litigation funders for the adverse costs was not to be limited to the extent to which the funder had provided funding (the 'Arkin cap’). The funder had not funded only a distinct part of the claimant’s costs. It stood to receive in return a profit amounting to a multiple of what it had spent. The judge had been entitled to have regard to the funder’s prospective gains and the extent to which the Arkin cap would have left the defendants out of pocket. The litigation had involved very serious allegations against parties who could not be expected to share legal representation.
28/10/19
UK TRUCKS CLAIM LTD v FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES NV [2019] CAT 26
Litigation funders engaged in the funding of a claim were not engaged in providing “claims management services” so the funding agreements were not damages-based agreements within s.58AA(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and were not unenforceable on that basis.