Court rejects challenge over third party arbitration funding costs

Chris Dryland and Michael Fenn of Pinsent Masons share the highlights learned from the High Court in London that rejected a challenge over third party arbitration funding costs. The court’s decision provided useful guidance by ruling that all it needs to consider, to determine if third party funding is reasonable, is whether recourse to third party funding was reasonable in the circumstances, and not whether other sources of funding were available. Read more.

Keep Reading

Insights

Third party funding of climate change arbitration

Pamela McDonald of Pinsent Masons argues that it is incumbent upon funders to identify climate change projects and the disputes arising from them as a priority investment area. She discusses the arbitral disputes connected to climate change, the rise and cost of climate-change related arbitrations, recoverability of costs and more. 

Insights

New ICSID rules finalised for investor state disputes

Clea Bigelow-Nuttall of Pinsent Masons reviews the set of amendments the Administrative Counsel of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has approved to its rules for resolving investor-state disputes after a six-year consultation period. She notes that while some updates to the ICSID Rules are wholly welcomed — addressing increased transparency, improving the efficiency of the arbitral process and codifying the use of third party funding — others, such as the new obligation to disclose the name and address of any third party funding, may risk fettering access to justice.

Before You Go

Never miss a thing in the litigation finance market.