Litigation funding: welcome High Court clarification for damages-based agreements
Much has been written in the press recently about litigation funding in the context of third party funders and the part they may play in disputes arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an important area of litigation funding but not the only one. The other key area is funding provided by law firms themselves and the recent case of Lexlaw Ltd v Zuberi  EWHC 1855 (Ch), with its welcome clarification of what has been an uncertain area, provides a timely boost to the use of one particular aspect of funding firms may offer their clients: damages-based agreements (DBAs).
DBAs are straightforward in principle. The law firm receives payment by way of a share of the damages awarded. The difficulty for solicitors is that the rules governing DBAs lack clarity, potentially risking the funding agreement being unenforceable.
In Lexlaw, the court was required to rule on whether a DBA entered into between the claimant law firm and the defendant, being the former client, was enforceable or not. The claimant law firm represented the former client in a dispute involving The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. This concluded on positive terms to the former client. Notwithstanding a successful outcome, the former client sought to challenge the law firm’s entitlement to payment.
The issue turned on the fact that the agreement’s termination provisions permitted the former client to terminate the agreement at any time, but specified that they would be liable to pay the firm’s costs and expenses incurred up to that point. This, the former client argued, rendered the DBA unenforceable.
The DBA Regulations 2013 expressly state that a DBA must not require an amount to be paid by the client other than the DBA payment (up to a cap) and any expenses incurred by the legal representative.
The court’s decision
The court rejected the former client’s argument. This was on the following bases:
- Such costs were recoverable on termination in employment cases and there was no reason to differentiate them.
- Such a construction would make lawyers reluctant to enter into DBAs which in turn would mean less choice for clients and be contrary to the purpose of making such agreements lawful so as to facilitate access to justice.
- Looking at the statutory context, the former client’s construction would produce a result that was irrational and without apparent justification.
- If the legislature had considered it necessary that DBAs should prevent such a scenario, this could have been said so in terms. The cap, noted above, was to do with sharing the spoils, which was distinct from that of fees contractually due on termination.
Since 2013, DBAs have been permitted for contentious work in England and Wales. Their introduction came about since it was considered desirable that as many funding methods as possible should be available to litigants, particularly once success fees under conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and the premiums for after-the-event (ATE) insurance were no longer recoverable from the losing party. This is a view we have shared in and DBAs form an important part of our flexible funding solution for clients, Feesible, alongside the option of CFAs and access to both a panel of approved third party funders and brokerage services for the ATE insurance market.
From a client’s perspective, a DBA means that they do not have to fund the litigation, beyond expenses incurred by their legal representative. Instead, they agree a division of the winnings, should their case succeed. This can take pressure off legal budgets and potentially allow claimants to pursue worthwhile claims that would otherwise have been too expensive to fund or otherwise commercially not viable. From the legal representative’s viewpoint, the DBA carries a greater share of the risk, but it offers the potential to share in a greater portion of the upside on successful cases.
However, the legislation governing DBAs has hindered their use. The DBA Regulations have been much criticised, with a number of drafting issues that have led to a lack of clarity for lawyers and clients alike as to what precisely would fall the right side of the line. To address these issues, a redraft of the Regulations was announced towards the end of last year. The changes represent an improvement on the existing regime and allow, for example, greater flexibility on terms as to payment where the DBA is terminated.
It was hoped that the redrafted Regulations might be enacted by the end of the year, but whether that is likely in the current climate is unknown. In the meantime, the judgment in Lexlaw is a helpful judicial endorsement of what has long been regarded as a difficult area and perhaps will offer some confidence to firms that have previously hesitated at the use of DBAs. The judgment was a victory for common sense. If clients could readily challenge DBAs despite achieving a successful outcome, firms will not offer them to clients, potentially hampering access to justice.
A Little Help from My Friends? New Measures on Assistance in the Collection of UK Taxes in Guernsey and the Isle of Man
An important development for individual taxpayers, trust companies and other professional services providers.
Charles Russell Speechlys successfully upholds record breaking judgment on appeal in multi-billion dollar fraud trial
The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the firm's clients in one of the world's largest fraud cases.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Peter Smith and James Colautti write for In-House Lawyer Magazine on the future of group litigation in the UAE
There are numerous areas of law and sectors where class action or group litigation in the UAE may crystallise in the near future.
Gareth Mills, Georgina Munnik and Sam Saunders write for International Comparative Legal Guide - Telecoms, Media & Internet
The chapter covers common issues in Bahrain's telecoms, media & internet laws and regulations.
Ghassan El Daye
Ghassan El Daye quoted by Khaleej Times on the UAE’s new cybercrime law
Under the cybercrime law, publishing and sharing fake news on social media can result in a fine of Dh100,000 and one-year jail sentence.
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Georgina Munnik and Sam Saunders write for Lexology's Getting The Deal Through on the enforcement of foreign judgments in Bahrain
Bahrain is a signatory to a number of bilateral and multilateral reciprocal recognition treaties.
Arbitration agreements: governing law clarified and NOM clauses show their bite
Sam and Simon look at the recent developments concerning how the English courts will determine the governing law of arbitration agreements.
Samuel Jenkins and Simon Heatley write for Practical Law Magazine on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group
The Supreme Court decision provides clarity on how the English courts will determine the governing law of arbitration agreements.
Piers Master and Peter Smith write for eprivateclient on tailoring arbitration for family offices
The advantages of arbitration over litigation as a form of dispute resolution are well-known.
Charles Russell Speechlys named in Global Restructuring Review’s GRR 100 2021
Restructuring and Insolvency team ranked in Global Restructuring Review
Patrick Gearon FCIArb
Patrick Gearon, Sara Sheffield and Peter Smith write for Lexology Getting The Deal Through on enforcement of foreign judgments in the United Arab Emirates
A quick reference guide enabling side-by-side comparison of local insights into relevant treaties, conventions and other sources of law.
Judicial Review Reform
Judicial review is a mechanism available to various interested parties to challenge the legality of decision made by a public body.
Privy Council confirms ability of courts to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings – but beware the minority report
Georgina looks at the landmark Privy Council judgment on freezing and interim injunctions
PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon: A Warning for Directors in Breach of Section 216 Insolvency Act 1986
Georgina takes a look at PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon
Playing fast and loose with justice: estoppel by conduct
Ben and Simon look at La Micro Group (UK) Ltd and another v La Micro Group Inc and others and its impact on estoppel
Lloyd v Google – Supreme Court to deliver judgment tomorrow (on 10 November 2021) – a reminder of the issues at stake
Ben Moore and Simon Heatley write for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog on the potential for estoppel to arise based on the conduct of a party in litigation
The potential for estoppel to arise based on the conduct of a party in litigation is well established in the law of England and Wales.
Black Swans freezing in BVI but not migrating
No service-out gateway for BVI Black Swan injunctions, but so what?
Gareth Mills, Georgina Munnik and Thomas Catto write for The Technology Disputes Law Review on Bahrain's technology laws
Bahrain continues to be a regional HUB for ICT and technology innovation.