header-logo header-logo

01 December 2011
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New code for litigation funders

Civil Justice Council publishes voluntary code of conduct

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published its much-anticipated voluntary code of conduct for litigation funding.

Speaking at the launch, in the Royal Courts of Justice last week, Lord Justice Jackson said the code satisfied his recommendations, including that it contain effective capital adequacy requirements and place appropriate restrictions on funders’ ability to withdraw from ongoing litigation.

Jackson LJ said he anticipated that solicitors will be advising clients only to sign up with funding providers who agree to abide by the code.

“I express the hope that, in the future, litigation funders will be able to support a wider range of litigation than at present, including group actions and claims of lower value,” he said.

He named a range of litigation funding options that would be available if his final report is implemented—contingency fees, a supplementary legal aid scheme, and “hopefully” a contingent legal aid fund, as well as conditional fee agreements without recoverable success fees.

Members of the newly formed Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales will agree to abide by the code.

Michael Napier QC, chairman of the CJC working group responsible for the code, says the arrival of the code and the association “provides a welcome wrapper of confidence to litigants and lawyers who choose this developing method of funding civil cases”.

A new litigation funding company, Caprica, launched last week, with proposals to plug the gap left by Ministry of Justice proposals to abolish recoverability of success fees, funding small businesses with sums as low as £50,000, as well as large-scale litigation claims.

Issue: 7492 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll