The CAT again upheld a multiplier-based LFA as enforceable and not constituting a DBA, reinforcing the post-PACCAR consensus. The decision confirmed that removing any direct link between the funder’s return and the quantum of damages was sufficient to avoid the DBA regime.

The High Court cut the claimants’ proposed costs budget by approximately 75%, criticising the funded group litigation model for lacking the traditional downward costs pressure exerted by paying clients. The court described the budgets as exhibiting “financial incontinence.”

The High Court held that CPR 25.14 security for costs provisions cannot be circumvented by structuring litigation funding through a law firm rather than directly to claimants. The substance of the funding arrangement, not its form, determines whether the court may order security.

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 held that a revised LFA structured around a multiple of the funder’s capital commitment was not a DBA, applying the same reasoning as Alex Neill v Sony. The percentage-of-proceeds fallback clause was treated as dormant pending legislative reform.

The CAT held the revised LFA in Dr Kent’s App Store competition claim against Apple was enforceable, consistent with its earlier decisions. Apple was granted permission to appeal, and this case joined the consolidated Sony v Neill proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

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 Court of Appeal broadened the “same interest” test for representative claims under CPR 19.8, potentially opening up a wider range of funded group claims outside the CAT’s collective proceedings regime. The decision has significant implications for litigation funders considering representative actions as an alternative vehicle.