A question few funders dare ask openly, given the obvious risk of excommunication, but one which is impossible to ignore, given the deafening whispers reverberating in the industry’s corridors since 10 February 2020.
No commercial litigation solicitor bats an eyelid to the principle of a 100% uplift in a conditional fee agreement (CFA). They are taking the risk of losing all their work in progress if the case is unsuccessful and a 100% uplift is just reward.
“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” How true the words of Oscar Wilde would have rung for the litigation funding market ten years ago. Struggling at the time for any publicity or endorsement from the broader legal market, the kind of … Continue reading In defence of litigation funding
Big-hitting defendant solicitors were rather quick to proclaim the demise of the Arkin cap, following Snowden J’s judgment in Davey vs Money last month. They’re in good company. In his 2010 Review of Civil Litigation Costs, Jackson LJ said that funders should be fully liable for adverse costs. Others argue that the Arkin cap’s generosity … Continue reading The Arkin cap: not quite the demise being (pro-)claimed
“Yes” seems to be the consensus, ever since Snowden J commented in Premier Motorauctions that the absence of a credit rating indicated that an insurer might be at greater risk of defaulting.