← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case conditional and damages based agreementsthird party funding

R (on the application of Paccar Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal

[2023] UKSC 28
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Litigation funding agreements entitling funders to a percentage of damages are damages-based agreements under CLSA 1990 and unenforceable if non-compliant with DBA Regulations.

Key Principle

Litigation funding agreements that provide for the funder to receive a percentage of damages are damages-based agreements within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and are unenforceable if they do not comply with the DBA Regulations.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of R (on the application of Paccar Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and how it applies to your situation.

Explain R (on the application of Pacca...