Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
A liquidator’s firm was ordered to pay the successful defendants’ costs as a non-party because it had provided funding for the litigation as a commercial funder. On the facts, however, it was appropriate for the firm’s liability to be capped at the amount of the funding it had provided (the Arkin cap). The liquidator was also personally liable for 15% of the defendants’ costs from the time that he had joined the proceedings in order to pursue a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the original claimant being the company in liquidation which was held liable for all the costs). Written by James Potts QC and Matthew Parfitt, barristers, at Erskine Chambers (who appeared for the defendants).
Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Fielding and another  EWHC 2995 (Ch)
Funders, whatever their background, may be required to pay costs as a non-party. While every case turns on its own facts, there is no exemption for supposedly ‘non-professional’ funders, such as an insolvency practitioner’s firm, in circumstances where the provision of funding makes the firm a real party to the proceedings.
Funders will be able to limit their costs exposure by reference to causation and may in an appropriate case have their liability capped at the amount of funding provided (the Arkin cap), although the court is not obliged to impose a cap. In relation to the cap, the court followed the recent decision of Snowden J in Davey v Money  Costs LR 399,  EWHC 997 (Ch), (although an appeal is pending against that judgment, so this is a developing area).
In calculating the Arkin cap, sums provided by the funder to meet adverse costs orders are taken into account in the same way as funding provided to the funded party.
Separately, the court determined that CPR 44.10 does not impose an absolute rule that where an order makes no mention of costs, there is to be no order as to costs. Although that is the general rule, it is capable of being displaced in an appropriate case.
Following the dismissal of claims brought by BHUK (a company in liquidation) and its liquidator in June 2019, the successful defendants sought non-party costs orders against the funders of the litigation, which included the liquidator’s firm, Griffins. A settlement was reached with the ‘professional’ funder which had provided significant funding of the proceedings between August 2017 and the trial in February and March 2019. The application proceeded against Griffins, which had provided funding of £478,265 during the two-year period prior to the professional funder coming on board. If the litigation succeeded, Griffins stood to receive £504,502 via the liquidator’s remuneration, as well as the return of its original funding. The liquidator, who was one of two equity partners in the firm, was to be remunerated at 50% of net realisations from the litigation.
The court made a non-party costs order against Griffins. It held that Griffins was a real party to the litigation rather than a pure funder. Relevant factors were that:
The court limited Griffins’ liability in two ways. First, it held that Griffins was only liable for costs it caused the defendants to incur. This meant that Griffins was not liable for costs incurred prior to Griffins providing funding. Second, it held that Griffins’ liability should be capped at the amount of funding provided (including funding provided to pay adverse costs orders to the defendants), in other words in line with the Arkin cap. The court followed Davey v Money in holding that there was no fixed rule for such a cap, but the question was what was just in all the circumstances. On the facts of this case, it was just for Griffins’ liability to be capped.
The court also held that CPR 44.10 does not impose an absolute rule that where an order makes no mention of costs, there is to be no order as to costs. The court had jurisdiction to determine the costs of an earlier consequential hearing in respect of which the order was silent on the issue of costs.
Matthew Parfitt and James Potts QC are barristers at Erskine Chambers. If you have any questions about membership of LexisPSL’s Case Analysis Expert Panels, please contact email@example.com.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234