‘Agreements with third-party litigation funders are damages-based agreements (DBAs), the Supreme Court said today in a ruling likely to invalidate almost all existing arrangements.’
Legal Futures, 26th July 2023
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘This appeal concerns a matter of statutory interpretation in the context of litigation funding. Litigation funding involves the agreement of a third party (with no prior connection to the litigation) to finance all or part of the legal costs of certain litigation, in return for a percentage of any damages recovered should the funded litigant be successful. In particular, this appeal concerns whether each of the agreements to provide this funding, known as litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”), constitute a “damages-based agreement” (“DBA”), a term given a specific definition by statute. In order to be lawful and enforceable a DBA has to satisfy certain conditions. The LFAs have been entered into without satisfying those conditions, so the question whether they constitute DBAs is critical for their enforceability.’
UKSC Blog, 26th July 2023
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Sweeting J in the High Court allowed a medico-legal expert’s appeal against a Third Party Costs Order (“TPCO”) made against him. The TPCO had awarded the Defendant NHS Trust the full sum of the costs incurred by it in the defence of the action brought by the Claimant.’
QMLR, 18th July 2023
Source: 1corqmlr.com
‘There has been a spate of recent cases where professionals involved as respondents in disciplinary proceedings have sought anonymity orders in their favour. Helen Evans KC and Richard O’Brien explore whether a divide is emerging between the approach adopted by courts compared with tribunals. They also look some of the practical pitfalls of anonymity orders protecting respondents, as well as considering the position of witnesses and other third parties.’
4 New Square, July 2023
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘In our spring 2023 insurance law review we look at cases across a range of areas with no standout theme. We review cases ranging from Covid 19 business interruption claims to recovery of professional fees; from reservation of rights to subrogation; from insurable interest to damages for late payment. We look at cases on the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Acts 1930 and 2010, aggregation and exclusion clauses. And we note the continuing lack of significant case law on presentation of risk under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 and the Insurance Act 2015.’
4 New Square, 28th March 2023
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Court of Appeal has signalled the possibility of a non-party costs order in the Belsner case after ordering the claimant to make an interim costs payment of £130,000.’
Legal Futures, 16th November 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The UK government is supporting a private member’s bill to bring back employers’ liability for harassment of employees by third parties at work, as well as introduce a new duty to prevent workplace sexual harassment.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd November 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In this case HHJ Richard Williams (sitting as a High Court Judge) held that significant litigation misconduct by third parties (who had been controlling the litigation conduct of a named party to proceedings) was sufficient to make an order for non-party costs against them.’
Hailsham Chambers, 7th October 2022
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The High Court has declared unlawful the Department for Work & Pensions’ written guidance for officials on ‘third party deductions’.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th September 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) is a disclosure order available in England and Wales which allows information to be obtained from third parties who have become ‘mixed up’ in wrongdoing, helping victims to investigate, pursue those ultimately responsible and recover their losses.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th August 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Court of Appeal yesterday highlighted the importance of judicial control over costs to ensure that the involvement of third-party litigation funders does not create perverse incentives.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In principle, a claim can be made against one responsible party for all losses suffered, even when other parties were involved (e.g. a claim against solicitors when a barrister may have also provided advice) but what if a claim is made against you and you aren’t the only one to blame?’
Mills & Reeve, 26th July 2022
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘The Serious Fraud Office must prevent third parties having ‘direct access’ to the watchdog’s director and ensure all prosecutions have an “effective disclosure strategy”, a review into the calamitous Unaoil bribery case recommended today – as a third man jailed after the investigation had his name cleared.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st July 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Less than a fifth (18%) of the public are comfortable with the use of data from the courts by tech companies, a major study has found.’
Legal Futures, 21st July 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A judge allowed an “impermissible device” designed to provide a public source of funding for the parties’ legal costs in private family law proceedings, the Family Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has criticised the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for taking it upon itself to issue “sweeping anonymity orders” in respect of all the third parties in a case about a solicitor’s social media posts.’
Local Government Lawyer, 7th July 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Since last year, Warren has proved a thorn in the side of those bringing claims arising out of external cyber-attacks – appearing, at least, to bar such Claimants from relying on the torts of negligence and misuse of private information (MPI), as well as breach of confidence. That appearance was confirmed to be reality by Saini J in Graeme Smith & ors v TalkTalk Telecom Group plc [2022] EWHC 1311 (QB). Avid readers of Panopticon will observe that it was Saini J who also decided Warren, thus confirming the position in Smith (not the South African cricketer), in the face of attempts by the Claimants initially to suggest that Warren was wrongly decided; diluted subsequently to seek to distinguish it on the facts. Saini J’s confirmation of the position post-Warren (and explaining that had given consideration to the case of Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Force [1997] QB 464), is important, as it makes the law clear, following HHJ Pearce’s decision in Collins & Ors v Ticketmaster UK Limited [2022] Costs LR 123. In Collins, the Court had not decided the point, but did permit an amendment to plead MPI in a data breach case despite Warren – although “could not say that the claim went beyond that which was arguable”. HHJ Pearce permitted the amendment in Collins where the claimants had argued that Warren could be distinguished and did not apply to cases where the defendant had taken a deliberate decision to conduct its business in a manner that did not comply with the relevant industry standard – as opposed to “pure” omission cases. The clarity now provided by Saini J is welcome, given the importance of the feasibility of MPI claims in this field to claimants potentially being able to recover ATE premia (the conventional wisdom being that they are irrecoverable in DPA/GDPR claims).’
Panopticon, 30th May 2022
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘If a document is privileged, the basic position is it can be withheld from third parties.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th May 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The difficulty of people signing up to a collective action and the availability of third-party funding were legitimate factors to take into account in making it opt-out, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 9th May 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025