U.S. Chamber of Commerce link

United Kingdom

OVERVIEW

While litigation by multiple claimants is possible in the UK in certain circumstances, there is currently no procedure which provides for class actions of the kind seen in the U.S. In December 2010, an attempt by claimants to create a form of class action using an existing procedure was rejected by the courts. Accordingly, while ILR continues to monitor developments in the UK closely, recent advocacy efforts have concentrated on the issues of litigation costs and funding.

These issues were the subject of a comprehensive review by a senior British judge, Lord Justice Jackson. Since the publication of Jackson LJ’s Final Report, the Government has consulted on and adopted a number of his recommendations, some of which – including the abolition of the current ban on contingency fees in litigation – are to be implemented by a major bill currently being debated in Parliament. ILR also continues to oppose the development of third party litigation funding in the UK. A voluntary code of conduct for litigation funders was published in November 2011 but, as prominent Members of the House of Lords have recognized, what is required is a binding statutory regime to protect litigants.

READ MORE ABOUT UNITED KINGDOM

Issue Resources: United Kingdom

ILR Comments on the Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders

The UK Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) has proposed a draft code of conduct to govern third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) under the auspices of a proposed voluntary association, the Association of Litigation Funders.  The proposal for regulating Litigation Funders envisioned by the draft Code implicitly recognizes that third-party litigation funding threatens to undermine consumer interests and foster litigation abuse.  The Code, however, is inadequate.  As a threshold matter, it does not have the force of law. 

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform states that the only way to adequately safeguard the rights of consumers and defendants – and promote the orderly administration of civil justice in England and Wales – is to enact a statute that is binding on all Litigation Funders. LEARN MORE »

Download Now

October 2011 ILR Letter to the UK Ministry of Justice

In this letter to the UK Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt. Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) expresses grave concerns in relation to the Civil Justice Council (CJC) Code of Conduct on Third Party Litigation Financing (TPLF).  ILR suggests that rather than endorsing an inadequate self-regulatory code, the Government should take time to consider the case for a mandatory set of safeguards for TPLF.  ILR explains in its letter why strong safeguards are necessary and suggests that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO Bill) provides a suitable opportunity to create the power for such safeguards to be put in place following a full consultation. LEARN MORE »

Download Now

July 2011 ILR Letter to the UK Ministry of Justice

Download Now

ILR Response to CJC's Self-Regulatory Code of Conduct

Download Now

ILR Response to 2010 UK Financial Services Bill

Download Now

ILR Response to December 2009 Final Report

Download Now

Third Party Financing: Ethical and Legal Ramifications in Collective Actions

Third Party Financing: Ethical and Legal Ramifications in Collective ActionsThis paper begins with an overview of third party litigation financing. It next examines the current third party financing practices of a number of European jurisdictions. Then, it sets forth ILR’s critique of the practice, particularly the incentives it creates to engage in frivolous and abusive litigation. ILR also presents a case study of the Commonwealth of Australia, the first jurisdiction to permit third party litigation funding, where such funding has dramatically increased litigation and given investors pervasive — even total — control over a claimant’s case. Finally, the paper concludes that such funding should be prohibited altogether in collective litigation.

Download Now

ILR Response to June 2009 Interim Report

Download Now