Costs litigation funding cases—2016 in review [Archived]
Costs litigation funding cases—2016 in review [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Costs litigation funding cases—2016 in review [Archived]
  • Key litigation funding cases 2016—what do you need to know?
  • Exclusion clauses in professional indemnity insurance contracts—ascertaining the limitations (Impact Funding v AIG)
  • Publication and privacy proceedings—ATE insurance premiums and CFA success fees are not incompatible with ECHR (
  • )
  • Third party funders—liability for indemnity costs (Excalibur v Texas)
  • CFA assignment—how this area is developing (Griffith v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd)
  • Third party funders—disclosing their identities (Wall v RBS)
  • Litigation funding 2016—closing remarks

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

Key litigation funding cases 2016—what do you need to know?

Some of the key points which have arisen out of decisions in the commercial or third party litigation or funding arena in 2016 are:

  1. the Supreme Court has considered the construction of an exclusion clause in a solicitor's professional indemnity insurance contract (Impact Funding v AIG), see below

  2. the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three appeals seeking to balance rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) against the ability to recover costs associated with third party funding (Frost v MGN, Miller v Associated Newspapers Limited and Times Newspaper v Flood) which will determine these matters in the context of post-Jackson reform funding arrangements. Currently the courts are treating the ability to recover additional liabilities as compatible with the ECHR (BNM v Mirror Group Newspapers), see below

  3. the Court of Appeal has held that third party funders can be liable for costs on an indemnity basis subject to the Arkin cap (Excalibur v Texas), see below

  4. there have been several cases dealing with the assignment of CFAs and courts are finding themselves increasingly bound to follow

Popular documents