BSV Claims Ltd v Bittylicious Ltd [2024] CAT 48

BSV Claims Ltd brought collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal against Bittylicious Ltd and other defendants in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the cryptocurrency market. Specifically, the claim concerned the delisting of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision from major cryptocurrency exchanges, which was alleged to constitute a concerted practice contrary to competition law. The proceedings were backed by third-party litigation funding, and following the PACCAR decision, the funder restructured its LFA to adopt a multiplier-based return mechanism tied to capital committed rather than a percentage of damages. The defendants challenged the enforceability of the revised funding agreement on grounds that it remained, in substance, a DBA. The CAT delivered its third consistent ruling on the post-PACCAR LFA question, holding that the multiplier-based funding structure did not render the agreement a DBA within the meaning of section 58AA.

The Tribunal’s reasoning followed closely its earlier decisions in Alex Neill and McLaren, emphasising the distinction between agreements where the funder’s entitlement is determined by reference to the amount of damages recovered and those where it is determined by reference to the funder’s own capital investment. The decision was significant in several respects. It demonstrated the robustness of the CAT’s approach across different types of competition claims and different factual contexts. It also confirmed that the restructuring strategy adopted by the litigation funding industry in response to PACCAR was proving effective, at least at the Tribunal level. By July 2024, three separate CAT panels had reached the same conclusion, creating a strong body of first-instance authority that would subsequently be upheld by the Court of Appeal. The decision provided further comfort to funders that the multiplier-based model represented a viable long-term solution to the PACCAR problem.