The Commercial Court considered whether PACCAR rendered Harbour’s pre-existing litigation funding agreement unenforceable as a non-compliant DBA. The case raised issues of res judicata, abuse of process, and the retroactive application of PACCAR to historical LFAs.

The CAT considered evidence on take-up rates in the shipping cartel collective proceedings, addressing the likely proportion of class members who would claim their share of any damages. The issue has practical significance for litigation funders whose returns depend on aggregate distributable damages.

The CAT refused certification of a proposed collective proceedings claim against Apple that was funded by Asertis. The decision demonstrated that third-party funding does not guarantee certification and highlighted risks for funders investing at the pre-certification stage.

The Chancery Division assessed damages for breach of duty in outsourced PPI claims handling arrangements involving third-party litigation funding. The court applied a loss-of-chance methodology that included lost litigation funding costs among the recoverable heads of loss.

The CAT dismissed the first opt-out collective proceedings to reach a substantive trial judgment, finding against the class on the merits. BT was awarded approximately £14 million in adverse costs, highlighting the financial risks borne by litigation funders in unsuccessful claims.

The Supreme Court held that litigation funding costs, including the funder’s success fee, are not recoverable from the opposing party as part of an inter partes costs order. The decision reinforced the Jackson reforms’ principle against recoverability of third-party funding costs.

The Court of Appeal considered representative action and class certification issues in funded data privacy group litigation against Google. The decision addressed the scope of group claims relating to data processing under UK GDPR.

The Court of Appeal addressed jurisdictional and procedural issues in the Bille and Ogale Group Litigation concerning oil spills in the Niger Delta. The case illustrated the role of litigation funding in enabling large cross-border environmental tort claims against multinational parent companies in English courts.

The High Court ordered litigation funder Asertis to provide security for costs after finding that neither its financial position nor its ATE insurance provided sufficient assurance of its ability to meet adverse costs. Security was set at 60% of incurred costs plus 70% of estimated future costs.