The Role of Litigation Funding in the Post Office Scandal: A Double-Edged Sword for Funders
The role of litigation funding in exposing the widest miscarriage of justice in UK history has come under scrutiny, with funders facing a double-edged sword as their practices are being reviewed.
The 2019 group claim featured in the hit TV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, which was underpinned by litigation funding, has been praised for bringing justice to the 555 sub-postmasters and mistresses (SPMs) involved. However, concerns have been raised about the small amount of compensation received by the claimants after legal fees were deducted.
The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which aims to protect the litigation funding industry, completed its committee stage in the House of Lords. Peers made it clear that their support for the bill was conditional on a review of the industry’s practices to ensure fairness for claimants.
The bill seeks to reverse the effect of last July’s Supreme Court PACCAR decision, which rendered many litigation funding agreements unenforceable. During the debate, concerns were raised about the retrospective nature of the bill potentially contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has launched a review of third-party funding, with a focus on whether these arrangements provide effective access to justice. The review will assess the current position of litigation funding and make recommendations for reform, with an interim report due this summer and a final report by 2025.
The legal sector has welcomed the CJC review, with industry experts expressing hope that it will lead to a better understanding of the benefits of litigation funding in enabling access to justice. The Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) has emphasized the importance of self-regulation and high standards of conduct among its members.
Overall, the review of litigation funding practices in the UK is seen as a crucial step towards ensuring fair and proportionate access to justice for all parties involved in legal disputes.
