High Court ruling “shows strength of Manolete model” – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court ruling refusing to set aside £4.3m judgment in default in a suppressed sales case shows the strength of the litigation funding model used by Manolete Partners, it has been argued.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 5th December 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Litigation funder highlights lack of competition – Litigation Futures

Posted November 28th, 2019 in champerty, competition, news, third parties by sally

‘The market of clients using litigation finance through choice rather than necessity – especially companies looking to offload their liability for portfolios of cases – remains “almost entirely unaddressed”, an AIM-listed funder has told investors.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 28th November 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Regulation of third party litigation funding in England and Wales – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 20th, 2018 in champerty, news, third parties by tracey

‘Third party litigation funding is a growing industry in England and Wales, although the market remains largely unregulated.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 19th July 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Setting up special purpose vehicle to pursue debts “not champertous”, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

Posted May 7th, 2015 in champerty, debts, news, striking out by sally

‘Setting up a company as a special purpose vehicle to pursue an individual and his family for debts, including through the courts, does not amount to champerty, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 7th May 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Law firms cannot be held liable for disbursement costs, rules CoA – The Lawyer

Posted April 12th, 2013 in champerty, costs, fees, news, solicitors by sally

“Firms cannot automatically be held liable for costs when they have funded a claimant’s disbursements in a failed claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”

Full story

The Lawyer, 11th April 2013

Source: www.thelawyer.com

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and others v Telefόnica UK Ltd (Open Rights Group, intervening) – WLR Daily

Golden Eye (International) Ltd and others v Telefόnica UK Ltd (Open Rights Group, intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 1740; [2012] WLR (D) 396

“Where a court had found that arrangements entered into by copyright owners with a claimant copyright owner to sue intended defendants in its own name and on behalf of the other owners for alleged breach of copyright were not champertous and that it was proportionate to make an order for disclosure to enable the other owners to have their infringement claims brought, since their interests in enforcing their copyrights outweighed the interests of intended defendants in protecting their privacy and data protection rights, there was no justification for the court to grant relief to the claimant alone and not the other owners without identifying some factor as affecting the balance of the competing interests identified.”

WLR Daily, 21st December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Litigation funders become big business, enjoying booming market in UK – The Guardian

Posted May 26th, 2012 in champerty, costs, damages, legal profession, news, third parties by sally

“Champerty used to be a crime. Now it is known as third-party litigation funding and has developed into an investment industry backed by up to £500m of investor cash looking for lucrative courtroom opportunities.”

Full story

The Guardian, 25th May 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Sibthorpe and another v Southwark London Borough Council (Law Society intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 28th, 2011 in champerty, costs, indemnities, law reports by sally

Sibthorpe and another v Southwark London Borough Council (Law Society intervening) [2011] EWCA Civ 25; [2011] WLR (D) 21

“A conditional fee agreement which provided for the claimant’s solicitors to indemnify her against payment of the defendant’s costs if the claim was dismissed was not champertous or otherwise contrary to public policy. As a result its inclusion in a conditional fee agreement which in all other respects complied with the requirements of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 did not invalidate the agreement.”

WLR Daily, 26th January 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.