Jump to content

Litigation Funding (UK): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Litfund (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Tag: references removed
Litfund (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
'''South Africa'''
'''South Africa'''


In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal held, in PriceWaterHouse Coopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-operative Ltd 2004 (6) SA 66 (SCA), that the need for the rules of maintenance and champerty has diminished - if not entirely disappeared in the light of the right of access to justice enshrined in the Constitution and the coming into force of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 which made speculative litigation possible by permitting no win, no fees agreements between legal practitioners and their clients.
In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal held, in ''PriceWaterHouse Coopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-operative Ltd 2004 (6) SA 66 (SCA)'', that the need for the rules of maintenance and champerty has diminished - if not entirely disappeared in the light of the right of access to justice enshrined in the Constitution and the coming into force of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 which made speculative litigation possible by permitting no win, no fees agreements between legal practitioners and their clients.


In essence, the Court ruled that (1) an agreement in terms of which a stranger to a lawsuit advances funds to a litigant on condition that his remuneration, in case the litigant wins the action, is to be part of the proceeds of the suit, is not contrary to public policy or void, and (2) the existence of such an assistance agreement cannot be the base of a defence in the action.
In essence, the Court ruled that (1) an agreement in terms of which a stranger to a lawsuit advances funds to a litigant on condition that his remuneration, in case the litigant wins the action, is to be part of the proceeds of the suit, is not contrary to public policy or void, and (2) the existence of such an assistance agreement cannot be the base of a defence in the action.
Line 13: Line 13:
In June 2010, in an interlocutory ruling rendered in the same case, the High Court found that the funder is after all a co-owner of the claim and should therefore be joined as a party to the trial. Therefore, an order for costs may be made directly against him to the extent that the funded party cannot support them even after the termination of the funding agreement.
In June 2010, in an interlocutory ruling rendered in the same case, the High Court found that the funder is after all a co-owner of the claim and should therefore be joined as a party to the trial. Therefore, an order for costs may be made directly against him to the extent that the funded party cannot support them even after the termination of the funding agreement.


''Source:'' [http://www.litigationfunding.co.za Litigation Funding SA]
''Author:'' [http://www.litigationfunding.co.za Litigation Funding SA]


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 04:26, 21 August 2010

Litigation funding is a practice in which individuals who are plaintiffs in lawsuits receive money from firms and individuals who take a lien on the proceeds of a personal injury suit in return for ready cash. It is not considered a loan as the money does not have to be repaid if the plaintiff's law suit is unsuccessful; it is nonrecourse debt. Funding companies also advance money to attorneys against anticipated legal fees earned in a personal injury matter.

South Africa

In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal held, in PriceWaterHouse Coopers Inc and Others v National Potato Co-operative Ltd 2004 (6) SA 66 (SCA), that the need for the rules of maintenance and champerty has diminished - if not entirely disappeared in the light of the right of access to justice enshrined in the Constitution and the coming into force of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997 which made speculative litigation possible by permitting no win, no fees agreements between legal practitioners and their clients.

In essence, the Court ruled that (1) an agreement in terms of which a stranger to a lawsuit advances funds to a litigant on condition that his remuneration, in case the litigant wins the action, is to be part of the proceeds of the suit, is not contrary to public policy or void, and (2) the existence of such an assistance agreement cannot be the base of a defence in the action.

In June 2010, in an interlocutory ruling rendered in the same case, the High Court found that the funder is after all a co-owner of the claim and should therefore be joined as a party to the trial. Therefore, an order for costs may be made directly against him to the extent that the funded party cannot support them even after the termination of the funding agreement.

Author: Litigation Funding SA

See also

Litigation Funding is also the generic term used for the funding of most civil litigation that includes not only personal injury cases but commercial litigation. Included in litigation funding can be a number of various options: funding for own disbursements (such as expert fees, court fees and the like), some or all of own solicitor costs and payment of ATE insurance premiums.

Litigation funding is available in most Common Law jurisdictions provided the funder and the ATE insurer can be satisfied that the case has sufficient merits to be accepted.

The cost of litigation funding for commercial litigation (as against the funding of claimants/plaintiffs in personal injury cases who are awaiting an award) can take a number of forms including: a set percentage of an award obtained being paid to the funder, a system that used set funding fees with no percentage taken from damges or a combination of both of these.