Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Third party funding
IF THE CAP DON'T FIT A JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE TO ACQUIT: THE ARKIN CAP IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

IF THE CAP DON’T FIT A JUDGE DOESN’T HAVE TO ACQUIT: THE ARKIN CAP IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 25, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs

In the judgment today in Chapelgate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Ltd v Money & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 24 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to apply the “Arkin cap” to a party that had been funding litigation. …

THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can…

CLAIMANT MUST REVEAL IDENTITY OF THIRD PARTY FUNDERS: HIGH COURT DECISION

October 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Wall -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm) (Mr Andrew Baker QC sitting as a High Court Judge) the claimant was ordered to reveal the identity of third party funders. KEY POINTS The court has…

RECOVERING LITIGATION FUNDING COSTS: A HIGH COURT CASE -BUT ABOUT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

October 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Arbitration,, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Professor Dominic Regan and Nicholas Bacon QC for sending me a copy of the decision in Essar Oilfields -v- Norscot [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm).A decision of His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a Judge of…

APPLICATION TO DISCLOSE THIRD PARTY FUNDER REFUSED

August 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized, Useful links

The opening passages of the judgment of H.H. Judge Keyser Q.C. in Dawnus Sierra Leone Limited -v- Timis Mining Corporation Limited [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC) deal with the issue of disclosure of details of third party funding. KEY POINTS A…

INTEREST ON COSTS; PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS & INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST FUNDERS: EXCALIBUR IN THE REPORTS AGAIN

March 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs

We have looked at the Excalibur case before in the context of an order for indemnity costs against funders. Further decisions in relation to costs were made by Christopher Clarke L.J. in Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone INC [2015]…

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST FUNDERS : WHO PAYS WHAT FOR WHEN?

October 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs

In Excalibur Ventures & others -v- Psari Holdings & ors [2014] EWHC 3436 Christopher Clarke LJ awarded costs on an indemnity basis against third party funders.  Many important matters of general importance are considered. THE CASE The claimants brought what…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 32.7K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE…
  • CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT’S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • WEBINAR ON CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE COSTS: KING CHAMBERS EVENT: 7th DECEMBER 2023
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS – BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S COSTS:
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • CLAIMANTS' SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT'S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE...
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS - BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY'S COSTS:
  • GRIFFITHS -v- TUI: SUPREME COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT: THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR: POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE EXPERT

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...