Yes. Third-party litigation funding is permitted, and endorsed by the judiciary and policymakers as a tool of access to justice. While English law continues to discourage funders from ‘controlling’ the litigation that they fund, the courts have a generally positive attitude to third-party funding.
The historic, and long-abandoned, prohibition of third-party litigation funding was rooted in the ancient concepts of maintenance and champerty. Maintenance is third-party support of another’s litigation. Champerty is a form of maintenance in which the third party supports the litigation in return for a share of the proceeds.
At the start of the twentieth century, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts. Following the second world war, the law on funding of civil litigation changed dramatically. The introduction of legal aid in 1950 created a state-funded exception to the historic prohibition on litigation funding. Further exceptions came with the growth of insurance and trade union-funded litigation. The Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the crimes and torts of maintenance and champerty. While those principles continue to exist in the public policy relating to litigation funding, their scope has been much reduced, and they apply nowadays only to discourage funders from exerting undue control over the litigation that they fund. ‘No win, no fee’ arrangements between litigants and lawyers (in effect, another form of litigation funding) were introduced in the early 1990s and substantially liberalised in 2000.
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport was a case taken against the UK government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached EU law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the United Kingdom. The case produced a number of significant judgments on British constitutional law. In 2002, the Court of Appeal in Factortame (No. 8)  EWCA Civ 932 explained that only those funding arrangements that tended to ‘undermine the ends of justice’ should fall foul of the prohibition on maintenance and champerty. In other words, reasonable litigation funding arrangements entered into with professional and reputable third-party funders who respect the integrity of the judicial process are perfectly lawful.
In its 2005 decision in the case of Arkin v Borchard Lines, the Court of Appeal was again sympathetic to the position of professional litigation funders as tools for access to justice (see question 18).
In a landmark ruling in 2016 (Essar Oilfields Services Limited v Norscott Rig Management  EWHC 2361 (Comm)), the English Commercial Court upheld the decision of an arbitrator (former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Philip Otton) to allow a successful claimant to recover its third-party litigation funding costs from the losing defendant as ‘other costs’ under section 59(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).
In the 2017 case of Walter Hugh Merricks v MasterCard & Others  CAT 16, while the Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected class certification (see question 16), the Tribunal stated that it would have approved the litigation funding arrangements in that case. In keeping with the dominant trend of judicial comment on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr Justice Roth and his colleagues on the bench spoke in positive terms about litigation funding, noting ‘a range of extrajudicial material which recognised the importance of third-party funding in enabling access to justice’. They said that it should not be difficult for a tribunal to work out what a reasonable litigation funding return should be, not least because there is ‘now a developing market in litigation funding’.
In March 2018, Lord Justice Jackson, while reviewing the reforms made as a result of his 2009 report into the civil litigation costs regime in England and Wales, noted that his proposals to ‘promote [third-party funding] and introduce a code for funders have been successful. These reforms enable parties to pursue claims (and sometimes defences) when they could not otherwise afford to do so. Funders are highly experienced litigators and they exercise effective control over costs. They often insist upon having court-approved budgets. Self-evidently, these reforms promote access to justice and tend to control costs.’
Third-party funding is now a well-established and commonly used part of the English litigation landscape, which is judicially recognised as controlling costs and promoting access to justice. The third-party funding industry, which is arguably centred in London, has grown significantly in terms of the number of market participants, the capital available to them, the types of disputes that are funded and the size of investments made.
Back to top