• news-banner

    Expert Insights

The Supreme Court's decision in PACCAR: litigation funding stopped in its trucks?

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others on litigation funding agreements (LFAs) has generated a storm of headlines, suggesting that the funding industry in the UK is set for turbulent times ([2023] UKSC 28) (see below “Background to the decision in PACCAR"). The extent to which this is true may be debated but it is clear that the ruling necessitates careful consideration by funders, legal practitioners and their funded clients as to existing and future funding arrangements.


Claims management services

At the heart of the debate in PACCAR was the definition of a damages-based agreement (DBA) under section 58AA(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (1990 Act); in particular, whether the LFAs concerned the provision of “claims management services”. Since 1 April 2019, this phrase has been defined by reference to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and before that, by reference to the Compensation Act 2006. Claims management services are stated to be “advice or other services in relation to the making of a claim”, and “other services” includes a reference to “the provision of financial services or assistance”.
 
The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the Court of Appeal sitting as a Divisional Court found that, for a service to come within this definition, the service had to be provided within the context of the management of the claim and that funders did not normally manage a claim ([2019] CAT 26; [2021] EWCA Civ 299).
 
The Supreme Court overturned this conclusion. It ruled that “claims management services”, when read according to its natural meaning, could cover the relevant LFAs. Funders provide these services because they include financial services or assistance in isolation, as opposed to being in conjunction with the actual management of a claim. Parliament had deliberately used wide language and there could be good policy reasons to support its application; for example, evidence might emerge of third-party funders extracting more than a reasonable share of the recovery, in which case regulation would plainly be fairly and squarely within the purpose of the power in the legislation, in order to protect the consumers of these services.
 
As a result, the LFAs in question were held to be DBAs and, because all parties had accepted that the agreements did not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609) (2013 Regulations), they were unenforceable.


Impact on litigation funding

The impact of PACCAR on claims in the CAT will almost certainly be significant, given that DBAs are not permitted in opt-out cases, and it is understood that all current opt-out proceedings are funded by LFAs providing for a percentage return. Existing collective proceedings orders and the funding arrangements supporting the claims will need to be revisited. Since costs in these cases can run into the millions and take years to resolve, the importance, or even necessity, of litigation funding cannot be understated.
 
But the impact is not confined to proceedings in the CAT. The court observed that the consequences could be far-ranging, having been informed that most third-party LFAs would be unenforceable as the law currently stands. Lady Rose in her dissenting judgment noted that the conclusion reached by the majority of the court was likely to mean that most, if not all, LFAs that had been agreed since litigation funding began would be unenforceable and a radical review of the entire litigation funding sector in the UK would be necessary.
 
In her dissenting judgment, Lady Rose quoted Ms Dunn, chair of the Association of Litigation Funders, in saying that: “These consequences will extend to all or most litigation funding agreements that have been agreed since litigation funding began in England and Wales. This would be massively damaging both for the administration of justice in relation to the existing cases which involve funding by litigation funders, and the future access to justice of parties who would otherwise have employed litigation funding agreements to fund their cases. It would bring to an abrupt end hundreds of funded claims with potentially catastrophic financial consequences for all involved in the case. It would have a major impact on the development of group litigations before the English Courts…”
 
Given the growth in group actions in the UK, their prominence in areas such as climate change litigation, and the need generally for litigation funding to support these actions, it is unsurprising to see headlines describing the shockwaves caused by the court’s decision. No doubt many funders had, until now, proceeded on the understanding that their arrangements sat outside of the regulatory framework. Even Sir Rupert Jackson, when undertaking his review of civil litigation costs in 2008 to 2009, does not appear to have considered LFAs to be DBAs (see Exclusively online article “Jackson report: reformist but not too radical).
 
Certainly, to the extent that any LFAs have been prepared on the basis of a share of damages recovered, they are likely to be classed as DBAs. They will be unenforceable if they do not meet the strict conditions set out in the 1990 Act and the 2013 Regulations, in particular, the need to include reasons for the pricing and the fee cap of 50% of the damages recovered by the client, inclusive of VAT and disbursements (regulations 3(c) and 4(3), 2013 Regulations).
 
Funders, legal practitioners and funded clients would, therefore, be well advised to review any existing third-party funding arrangements that are subject to English law in light of the court’s ruling to consider whether these arrangements should be amended in order to be rendered enforceable. In turn, this could mean that funding is paused on current proceedings, which will have consequences for progressing cases and cash flow management for law firms.
 
It also remains to be seen whether there could be unintended regulatory consequences given the very wide definition accorded to “claims management services” and where, for example, financial products and personal injuries are subject to specific regulations.
 
However, just how far-ranging the court’s decision is may be open to debate. In the first instance, funders may have been taking pre-emptive steps in anticipation of this outcome, despite reports suggesting that the decision was a surprise to the industry. Secondly, it would seem that LFAs will only be within scope of the legislation to the extent that they are based on a share of any damages recovered. However, this is not the only way in which an LFA may be structured. Often, LFAs provide for a return based on a multiple of the funding or investment and, arguably, these will not be affected by the ruling, although there could be a counter argument that the fees still come from the damages recovered and the fact that the return is multiple-based is simply a method of calculation. Meanwhile, whether or not this will prove attractive to a consumer in a large group action is debatable: it is reasonable to expect that the multiple would be set quite high and the consumer will not know what proportion of their damages recovered will end up being paid to the funder.
 
The position could be further complicated if the funding arrangement is a hybrid of the two models, for example, the LFA provides for a return based on the higher of either a multiple of the amount invested or a percentage of damages recovered, or the multiple-based return is in some other way referable to the damages recovered, such as by way of a cap or threshold. In this scenario, it would be necessary to see whether the percentage recovery element could be severed in order to make the agreement enforceable. In Zuberi v Lexlaw Ltd, the Court of Appeal recognised that severance is a permissible route at common law provided that the necessary criteria for severance are fulfilled, and also held that the DBA constituted only the percentage-based payment part of the retainer rather than the retainer as a whole ([2021] EWCA Civ 16; see News brief “Damages-based agreements: an island of clarity in changing seas).


The way ahead

Funders, legal practitioners and funded clients will need to take steps to review existing arrangements and carefully consider new ones, whether they are in compliance with the 2013 Regulations or based solely on a multiple return. There could be vigorous challenges from defendants and, possibly, funded parties who may be, for example, officeholders with duties to creditors and seeking restitution of any amounts paid under an LFA affected by the ruling in PACCAR. No doubt insurers, such as those providing after-the-event insurance, will also have a vested interest in the enforceability of the arrangements and the extent to which their policies will be affected.
 
It will also be interesting to see whether PACCAR results in any legislative change. As the Supreme Court observed in PACCAR, the common law was historically hostile to arrangements for third parties to finance litigation between others. While there has been a substantial shift over the last 30 years in England and Wales, not least because the effectiveness of group litigation may depend on the use of third-party funding, DBAs at least on one view remain “islands of legality on a sea of illegality” (to borrow a phrase used before the court in Zuberi).
 
Expanding that landmass of legality has not been forthcoming. This is despite the Court of Appeal’s observations in Zuberi that “nobody can pretend these [2013] Regulations represent the draftsman’s finest hour” and the considerable efforts made in drawing up the draft Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2019 and presenting these to the Ministry of Justice. Notably, these draft regulations had provided expressly that an LFA is not a DBA. Given the satellite litigation and challenges that the Supreme Court’s ruling could spawn, greater regulation, and therefore certainty, around funding arrangements would be welcomed.
 

Background to the decision in PACCAR

The decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others arises in the context of the “trucks” litigation that has been proceeding before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ([2023] UKSC 28).
 
In 2016, the European Commission found that five truck manufacturing groups had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by delaying introducing low-emission technology and passing on the costs of emissions technology to consumers (www.practicallaw.com/5-632-9079). Two applications were made to the CAT to bring follow-on collective proceedings. To obtain a collective proceedings order (CPO), the applicants had to show that they had adequate funding arrangements in place to meet their own costs as well as any potential adverse costs. The applicants relied on litigation funding agreements (LFAs) to satisfy this condition. Under the LFAs, the funders would receive a share of any damages recovered in the proceedings.
 
The truck manufacturers contended that the funding arrangements were damages-based agreements and, as they did not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/609), that they were unenforceable and the CAT should not make a CPO. The CAT and the Court of Appeal sitting as a Divisional Court ruled against the truck manufacturers ([2019] CAT 26; [2021] EWCA Civ 299). A leapfrog appeal was made to the Supreme Court.
 
 
Reproduced from Practical Law with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com.
 

Our thinking

  • Mental Health Management

    Nick Hurley

    Events

  • Calculating Social Value in BTR

    Francis Ho

    Events

  • Dangers of trusts

    Mark Summers

    Events

  • The Evening Standard quotes Rose Carey on the increase in visa fees

    Rose Carey

    In the Press

  • New Hong Kong crypto regime: trading platforms falling foul already?

    Patrick Chan

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Zenzero’s management team on its majority acquisition by Macquarie Capital

    Mark Howard

    News

  • What next for HS2?

    Richard Flenley

    Quick Reads

  • Updates and points to note in relation to buy-to-let residential properties

    Twiggy Ho

    Insights

  • Felicity Chapman writes for Insider Media on alternatives to court for divorcing business owners

    Felicity Chapman

    In the Press

  • Investment Week quotes Julia Cox on the proposed scrapping of inheritance tax

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys expands commercial offering with the appointment of Rebecca Steer

    Rebecca Steer

    News

  • The Times quotes Gareth Mills on the CMA’s preliminary approval of the Activision Blizzard-Microsoft deal

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • Heritage property and conditional exemption

    Sarah Wray

    Insights

  • Mediation as a pillar of dispute resolution: it’s happening, embrace it

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • The Financial Times quotes Emma Humphreys on UK rental costs

    Emma Humphreys

    In the Press

  • Hong Kong’s top court makes declaration in favour of same-sex partnerships

    Lisa Wong

    Insights

  • City AM quotes Gareth Mills on the CMA’s new set of principles for regulating AI

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • A warning to all businesses: significant fine underscores the importance of maintaining workplace Health & Safety

    Rory Partridge

    Quick Reads

  • Hamish Perry and Mike Barrington write for The Evening Standard on whether a merger between the CBI and Make UK can work

    Hamish Perry

    In the Press

  • Silicon quotes Gareth Mills on the UK consumer lawsuit against Google

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • Common construction claims in Bahrain

    Mazin Al Mardhi

    Insights

  • Property Week quotes Louise Ward on the additional support required by aspiring UK life sciences operators

    Louise Ward

    In the Press

  • Sarah Higgins and David Wells-Cole write for Wealth Briefing on the pitfalls of using unregulated legal services

    Sarah Higgins

    In the Press

  • Office to Lab Conversions: A new lease of life (sciences) for some of London’s offices?

    Georgina Muskett

    Quick Reads

  • The Family Fund: Bank of Mum & Dad 2.0

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • The perpetual struggle between the environment, heritage and development: the M&S decision vs 55 Bishopsgate

    Sophie Willis

    Quick Reads

  • Treasury Committee endorses mandatory venture capital diversity policies from 2025

    Lia Renna

    Quick Reads

  • Oops!....I did it again - Britney's third divorce

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Product compliance and Brexit - UK Government concedes to CE markings indefinite recognition

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • Recognising financial abuse in a relationship

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • Has the Orpéa plan impaired shareholder's consent? - Le plan de sauvegarde d'Orpéa n'a-t-il pas vicié le consentement des actionnaires historiques ?

    Dimitri-André Sonier

    Quick Reads

  • Don’t push it… Quincecare duty clarified

    Caroline Greenwell

    Quick Reads

  • Pandora Papers: HMRC nudge taxpayers to come out of their box

    Hugh Gunson

    Quick Reads

  • Making BitCoin a BitClearer

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • DIAC Issues First Annual Report

    Georgia Fullarton

    Quick Reads

  • Dispute Resolution: The Case for Mediation

    Marjan Mirrezaei

    Quick Reads

  • Machinery Regulations respond to the rise of AI

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • Delay could bar your probate claim

    Katelyn Silver

    Quick Reads

  • Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration publishes new Arbitration Rules

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • From Farm to Fork: The Vital Role of Traceability in Meeting the UK's Sustainable Food Demands and Fighting Food Fraud

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

Back to top