A further appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the Court of Appeal’s ruling that multiplier-based LFAs with a damages cap are not DBAs. The outcome will definitively resolve the enforceability of restructured LFAs across the litigation funding market.

Apple’s appeal to the Supreme Court challenges the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the CAT has jurisdiction to approve waterfall provisions prioritising funder payment. The outcome will determine whether funders can secure priority of payment from collective proceedings damages.

The CAT held that a revised litigation funding agreement calculating the funder’s return as a multiple of capital committed was not a damages-based agreement under section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis of compelling reasons despite the Tribunal finding no real prospect of success.

The CAT approved a £200 million settlement of the interchange fee collective proceedings despite the litigation funder Innsworth’s opposition to the proposed distribution. Innsworth subsequently filed for judicial review of the approval decision.

The CAT upheld the enforceability of revised LFAs in the interchange fee collective proceedings brought by CICC I against Visa and Mastercard. This case became one of four joined for appeal to the Court of Appeal in the consolidated Sony v Neill proceedings.

The CAT held it had jurisdiction to approve waterfall provisions in an LFA prioritising the funder’s payment from damages before distribution to class members. Permission to appeal was granted to Apple on the waterfall jurisdiction point.

The CAT rejected a funded competition claim, contributing to the growing body of decisions demonstrating that not all funded claims before the Tribunal succeed. The case carried implications for funders’ risk assessment and portfolio management strategies.

The CAT certified collective proceedings against Google concerning app store practices despite objections relating to the LFA. The decision demonstrated the Tribunal’s continued willingness to certify new collective proceedings notwithstanding PACCAR uncertainty.

The CAT addressed permission to appeal and detailed costs rulings following the dismissal of the first opt-out collective proceedings. The decision provided important precedent on costs assessment in funded collective claims.