Herbert Smith Freehills LLP have published an article in Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law on the principal characteristics of third party litigation funding in the securities class action markets in Australia and England and Wales. In Australia, the rise of securities class actions over the last decade has been driven in part … Read more

Mr Justice Norris has now handed down judgment following the consequentials hearing in the landmark Lloyds/HBOS Litigation: Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors [2020] EWHC 1870 (Ch). Norris J resoundingly refused permission to appeal the judgment on liability and made a number of interesting findings on the adverse costs position of the claimants, and … Read more

In a recent decision which will be welcomed by defendants to funded group litigation, including financial institutions, the High Court has ordered security for costs against a commercial litigation funder in Rowe v Ingenious Media Holdings PLC [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch). The decision follows the court’s approach to security applications against litigation funders in the RBS Rights … Read more

A decision handed down by the Court of Appeal today has dismissed the suggestion that there is a fixed limit on a commercial litigation funder’s liability for the other side’s costs when a claim it has funded fails: Chapelgate Master Fund Opportunity Ltd v Money [2020] EWCA Civ 246. This is a significant decision and represents … Read more

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment holding that complainants who had accepted a Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) determination were barred from bringing court proceedings in relation to the same cause of action under the legal principle of res judicata. In doing so, the Court of Appeal overruled a High Court decision … Read more

The High Court has decided that a party who accepts a FOS determination awarding them the statutory maximum award (now £150,000) can subsequently claim for damages above that amount through the courts. The Court concluded the doctrine of merger does not apply to FOS decisions. This ruling is in direct conflict with a previous High … Read more

In ADS Aerospace Limited v EMS Global Tracking Limited [2012] EWHC 2904 (TCC), Mr Justice Akenhead sitting in the Technology and Construction Courtheld that a successful party was not unreasonable to refuse mediation and should not be penalised in costs on that basis. The judge’s approach was similar to the Court of Appeal in Swain Mason v Mills … Read more

A recent High Court judgment highlights the scope for confusion in applying Part 36 in a case where the formal roles of claimant and defendant do not reflect the reality of who is seeking a (greater) remedy in financial terms: The Procter & Gamble Company v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another[2012] EWHC 2839 (Ch). The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is … Read more