Litigation funding—Bermuda—Q&A guide
Litigation funding—Bermuda—Q&A guide

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

  • Litigation funding—Bermuda—Q&A guide
  • 1. Is third-party litigation funding permitted? Is it commonly used?
  • 2. Are there limits on the fees and interest funders can charge?
  • 3. Are there any specific legislative or regulatory provisions applicable to third-party litigation funding?
  • 4. Do specific professional or ethical rules apply to lawyers advising clients in relation to third-party litigation funding?
  • 5. Do any public bodies have any particular interest in or oversight over third-party litigation funding?
  • 6. May third-party funders insist on their choice of counsel?
  • 7. May funders attend or participate in hearings and settlement proceedings?
  • 8. Do funders have veto rights in respect of settlements?
  • 9. In what circumstances may a funder terminate funding?
  • More...

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to litigation funding in Bermuda published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: November 2020).

Authors: Zuill & Co—Lilla Zuill

1. Is third-party litigation funding permitted? Is it commonly used?

Litigation funding is fairly common in Bermuda and there is judicial authority to support the now commonly held view that such funding agreements are valid as a matter of Bermuda law.

In Stiftung Salle Modulable and Rütli Stiftung v Butterfield Trust (Bda) Ltd [2014] Bda LR 13 (Salle Modulable), Bermuda Chief Justice Ian Kawaley (as he then was) held that a litigation funding agreement with Harbour Litigation Funding (which was governed by English law) was not only valid but also suggested that use of such funding arrangements in civil litigation should be encouraged.

In that 2014 decision, it was held that the constitutionally protected rights of access to the court implicit in the Bermuda Constitution, as read with the relevant section of the European Convention on Human Rights, suggest that ‘such funding arrangements should be encouraged rather than condemned’.

‘I see no reason why Bermuda’s common law should adopt the antiquarian approach contended for by the [defendant],’ he added, rejecting the argument advanced by the defendant that common law prohibitions against such arrangements were still good law in Bermuda.

While Salle Modulable scrutinised the legality

Popular documents