header-logo header-logo

09 January 2024
Issue: 8054 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail

Post-PACCAR options

The government is ‘considering options’ for post-PACCAR funding reforms, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed

In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, the Supreme Court held litigation funding agreements are damages-based agreements and therefore unenforceable. Clause 126 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill reverses this, but only for opt-out clauses in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

During a Lords debate in December on the Bill, Lord Sandhurst proposed a draft amendment to widen cl 126 beyond CAT. Viscount Camrose, responding for the government, stated the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for this aim but said the government was ‘actively considering options for a wider response’.

Justice minister Lord Bellamy later confirmed this in a response to a written question.

Issue: 8054 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll