REUTERS | Rick Wilking

There are many ways to price litigation funding transactions, and different funders and their investors may employ different methods even for the same investment. In this piece and a preceding part 1, I explain one method of pricing single case investments using a simplified fundamental analysis where “risk” is reduced to a straight percentage chance of winning or losing (which is obviously a simplified view of the world of litigation funding). I then look at pricing from the other end of the equation to determine what a funder’s pricing may imply about the risk of a case. Finally. I turn to some real-world applications of implied risk to explain why it is often irrational for funders to abandon cases, and whether funders are too expensive. Continue reading

REUTERS | Dado Ruvic

There are many ways to price litigation funding transactions, and different funders and their investors may employ different methods even for the same investment. In this piece and a following part 2, I explain one method of pricing single case investments using a simplified fundamental analysis where “risk” is reduced to a straight percentage chance of winning or losing (which is obviously a simplified view of the world of litigation funding). I then look at pricing from the other end of the equation to determine what a funder’s pricing may imply about the risk of a case. Finally. I turn to some real-world applications of implied risk to explain why it is often irrational for funders to abandon cases, and whether funders are too expensive. Continue reading

REUTERS | Ammar Awad

The ongoing saga surrounding personal injury firms’ tussles with costs recovery specialists has resulted in some important guidance for solicitors on permissible fee arrangements. The implications on the charging structures for the sector could be profound, especially in respect of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and the charging of success fees. Continue reading

REUTERS | Henry Nicholls

In a worrying recent development, guidance has been issued by the European Commission which suggests exclusive English jurisdiction agreements entered into between October 2015 and exit day may not, in the case of a no-deal Brexit, come within the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. Continue reading

REUTERS | Leonhard Foeger

In Boyd and another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and others, Longmore LJ dealt with the tricky issue of injunctions against persons unknown, who were thought to be likely to become protesters at sites selected by the respondents for the purpose of exploration for shale gas by fracking. Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Blake

To costs “anoraks”, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Herbert v HH Law is likely to be one of the most important decisions of 2019, memorable for guidance about what constitutes “informed consent” by a client to the terms of their solicitor’s retainer. That is, however, to overshadow the tail-end-Charlie part of the judgment which concerns after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums and whether they are disbursements which must be included in a solicitor’s bill or are items which should appear only in the cash account.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Hutchings

Unless you are new to dispute resolution, it is likely you’ll have a good understanding of litigation funding and after the event (ATE) insurance. You probably have your fair share of “go-to” contacts that you call when the need arises. As familiar as you may be with certain products, how well do you know the obligations imposed on you in this area by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) and are you confident that you are consistently meeting them? Continue reading

REUTERS | Michaela Rehle

Service out of the jurisdiction is a step many parties have to take. Has getting it right (or getting out of getting service wrong) become easier? A decision earlier this year, Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd and others, suggests some hope exists, but only for those who have done their best to get things right. Continue reading

REUTERS | Denis Balibouse

In an earlier blog post, I suggested that practitioners would be well advised to follow the view expressed by Andrew Baker J in BB Energy (Gulf) DMCC v Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi and others, that permission is required to adduce expert evidence at an interlocutory hearing. The question has been asked whether that remains the case for freezing injunction and security for costs hearings, in light of the Commercial Court’s decision in Pipia v BGEO Group Ltd. I consider that it does. Continue reading

REUTERS | Stephane Mahe

Sophocles wrote that “things gained by unjust fraud are never secure”. Lord Denning described fraud as “a thing apart” which once proven “unravels all”. Where a judgment is procured by fraud, an action lies for set aside or rescission of that judgment. Where the victim of the fraud could have discovered it before the trial of the initial action, is the bringing of a rescission action an abuse of process? Continue reading