The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
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.
Some of the key points which have arisen out of decisions in the commercial or third party litigation or funding arena in 2016 are:
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
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
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
there have been several cases dealing with the assignment of CFAs and courts are
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234