After the PACCAR decision, the rules around litigation funding in the UK became much less certain. Litigation funding means money provided by an outside funder to help pay for a court case, usually in return for payment if the claim succeeds. Because of PACCAR, courts and lawyers now look more carefully at how these funding agreements are written.
As a result, the funding market is changing. Many funders are reviewing and rewriting their contracts to make sure they still work under the law as now interpreted. This has not been easy. In many ongoing cases, there is still uncertainty over whether existing agreements are valid and what effect the decision may have.
Claimants and law firms also need to adapt. Before PACCAR, funding was often treated as a fairly settled part of large claims. Now it is more complicated. Parties must think more carefully about how funding is structured and whether it will be enforceable. This matters because some claims cannot realistically be brought without outside funding.
For this reason, PACCAR has raised concerns about access to justice. Access to justice means whether people can realistically bring legal claims when they have a good case. If funding becomes harder to obtain, some claimants may be unable to pursue claims at all, especially expensive group or commercial cases.
The government is under pressure to make the law clearer. Parliament could step in and change the legislation, but it is still unclear when this might happen or how far any reform would go.
The wider debate is about whether litigation funding is helpful or harmful. Supporters say it allows people and businesses to bring claims they could not otherwise afford. Critics say it can encourage too much outside commercial influence in litigation and may affect how the system operates.
At present, the position is still developing. The effects of PACCAR are not yet fully settled, so the long-term shape of the UK litigation funding market remains uncertain.
Author: TOF
Leave a Reply