The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL] is due to have its second reading in the House of Lords on 15 April 2024. The bill would confirm in legislation that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages-based agreements (DBAs) in England and Wales. This would return the position to that which existed before July 2023 when the UK Supreme Court ruled that LFAs could be DBAs if the funder’s renumeration was based on a percentage of the damages recovered. 

LFAs are a type of financial agreement whereby a third-party funder pays for a litigant’s legal costs in return for a share of damages if the case is won. There are several ways a funder’s fee can be calculated if the case is won, including as a percentage of the damages awarded to the litigant. This type of litigation funding is often used in high value commercial, arbitration or group litigation claims. A recent example where litigation funding was used was the Post Office Horizon case. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, LFAs and the litigation funding industry were self-regulated. DBAs are a type of ‘no-win, no fee’ agreement between a client and their representative, usually their lawyer or claims management company. DBAs must adhere to the statutory and regulatory requirements set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (CLSA 1990) and the Damages-based Agreements Regulations 2013.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court ruling in R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28 held that LFAs could constitute DBAs if the funder’s remuneration was based on a percentage of the damages recovered. The government and the litigation funding industry both expressed concern that many LFAs would be deemed unenforceable because they did not comply with the legislative requirements for DBAs. The government said this uncertainty risked impacting access to justice and could damage the attractiveness of the England and Wales jurisdiction for commercial litigation and arbitration. The government committed to introducing legislation to reverse the effect of the Supreme Court ruling.


Related posts

  • Supporting separating parents to resolve private family law disputes

    Some separating couples apply to the family court to resolve disputes, such as where their child should live. Research has shown the negative impact that parental separation involving conflict can have on a child’s mental health and life chances. In January 2024, the government announced a reform programme of the family justice system to support families to resolve private family law disputes more quickly and protect children from lengthy court cases.

    Supporting separating parents to resolve private family law disputes
  • Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]: HL Bill 5 of 2023–24

    The Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL] is a private member’s bill sponsored by Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat). Conversion therapy is a range of practices which seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. If passed, this bill would criminalise offering or practicing conversion therapy, defined as practices where the practitioner demonstrates an assumption of a preferable outcome for a person’s orientation or identity.

    Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]: HL Bill 5 of 2023–24
  • Arbitration Bill [HL]

    Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that enables opposing parties to resolve a disagreement privately through a third party rather than going to court. The Arbitration Bill [HL] would amend the Arbitration Act 1996, the principal legislation governing arbitrations in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. The changes provided for in the bill would implement recommendations from the Law Commission following consultation with the sector.

    Arbitration Bill [HL]