‘Dispute resolution bodies must develop an understanding of the issues raised by third party funding as the role it plays in international arbitration continues to grow.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st September 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Clinical Genetics is a field of medicine concerned with the probability of an indvidual’s condition having an hereditary basis. The journal Medical Law International has just published an article about the scope of potential duties of care owed by specialists in this field to people with heritable diseases. The authors draw out the features of genomic medicine that open the door to new liabilities; a potential duty owed by clinicians to third party family members, and another legal relationship that may be drawn between researchers and patients.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd September 2017
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A recent decision by the Supreme Court has clarified the circumstances in which the court will be able to impose a financial requirement as a condition of the grant of permission to appeal, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Criminal penalties can be imposed on businesses that engage in the sale of so-called ‘grey goods’, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd August 2017
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A Court of Appeal judge was wrong to end an appeal because the appellant company had not complied with a condition to pay the judgment sum into court first and he thought its wealthy owner could have paid instead, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd August 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) does apply for the benefit of a paralysed lorry driver who had his claim struck out against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB), the Court of Appeal has ruled, overturning the High Court.’
Litigation Futures, 10th July 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In this Judgment handed down last week, the Court considered the potential for credit hire companies, who were not parties to the litigation, to be the subject of costs orders. The Appellant car hire company was the subject of such a non-party costs order at first instance and appealed to the High Court. The decision is one which anyone involved in credit hire should be aware of.
Park Square Barristers, 29th June 2017
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A local authority was required to give credit to leaseholders for funds received from third-parties when recovering a contribution to the cost of major works.’
Tanfield Chambers, 1st June 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)
‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The term “McKenzie friend” is not appropriate in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, the vice-president of the court has said in a ruling detailing the problems that the increasing number of “unqualified third parties” is causing.’
Legal Futures, 26th May 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘On the 1st June 2015, the Serous Crime Act 2015 enacted section 10a of POCA 2002. The section is designed to allow Crown Courts to make a determination on third party rights at the confiscation hearing rather than leaving the decision to the enforcement hearing in the Magistrates Court or in another forum such as in the family courts.’
Full story (PDF)
Drystone Chambers, 15th May 2017
Source: www.drystone.com
‘With court fees rising and litigation becoming increasingly expensive, third party litigation funding continues to grow. There are various reasons clients may want to consider litigation funding, such as the need for a cash injection to enable them to get their case off the ground or the desire to take the litigation risk off their balance sheet and avoid having funds tied up in lengthy legal battles. Litigation funding can also be a useful tool for solicitors as it can provide payment of their fees where a client does not have the funds to continue with the litigation.
Litigation Futures, 3rd May 2017
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Ms Oliver was the long leaseholder in a block of flats on the Lansdowne Estate, which was owned by the Council. The Council carried out city wide major works, which included works on the Lansdown Estate. Some of the works were eligible for a contribution from a commercial energy company as part of the Community Energy Savings Programme (“CESP”). In total 15 of the 25 blocks on the Lansdowne Estate were eligible to receive CESP funding. The contribution to Ms Oliver’s block was £43,570.44. The Council decided not to pass the CESP directly to the leaseholders as a set off against their service charge contributions. Rather, the Council decided to attribute the money to the funding of works to its city-wide housing stock. The effect of this was that every leaseholder’s service charge was reduced irrespective of whether their block had been entitled to CESP funding.’
Nearly Legal, 10th April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Criticism can hurt. Public criticism by a regulator taking enforcement action can hurt more. The law has long sought to ensure that those potentially subject to criticism have an opportunity to answer what is said against them.’
Blackstone Chambers, 5th April 2017
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘After a wait of more than a year from the introduction of class actions in the UK, there were two class certification hearings before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in just over a month. Although in each case the CAT has yet to hand down its certification decision, the hearings have given some clear signals about how the CAT sees the regime.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th March 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Ben Mansfield, barrister of The 36 Group, examines the judgment of Mr Justice Keehan in H (A Minor) v Northamptonshire County Council and the Legal Aid Agency [2017] EWHC 282 (Fam).’
Family Law Week, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Whatever your opinion on the ethical implications of third party funding in international arbitration, the past six months have seen two firm nods in its favour. These have signaled that, as a method of financing arbitration, it is here to stay.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down its judgment in the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others, a decision that is of great importance to third party funders and their potential liability for adverse costs.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Commercial third party funders are liable for the costs consequences of a litigant’s misconduct, regardless of whether they themselves were guilty of any “discreditable conduct or conduct which could be criticised”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025