From insult to personal injury – a sector in flux

The demise of two big-hitting personal injury firms (Hampson Hughes and Pure Legal) is a sign that the once buoyant claims sector is in a period of flux, with experts pointing to this year’s whiplash reforms as the catalyst for change. Lenders have also had enough and want to see evidence that mountains of claims will actually result in settlements and profits. Pure Legal’s administration was preceded by legal finance provider Novitas petitioning the court for bankruptcy. More from Law Gazette.

Keep Reading

In the News

Firm urges Court of Appeal to ‘develop’ common law on champerty

London-based commercial law firm Candey has urged the Court of Appeal to ‘remove the medieval shackles of champerty from legitimate solicitor-client agreements’ and validate the assignment of a now-deceased client’s claim to his solicitors. Candey is asking the court to ‘develop’ the common law so that assignments to solicitors are permitted where it would not ‘enlarge the benefit they would otherwise have received’. The commercial firm argues the introduction of damages-based agreements (DBAs) and the growth of litigation funding means that ‘lawyers are now as much commercial parties in litigation as they are officers of the court.’

Insights

Litigation funding and marginal gains

Tets Ishikawa of Lionfish comments on the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s rulings in two recent judgments (Kent v Apple and Coll v Google) that disclosing ATE premiums would give the defendants an ‘unfair tactical advantage’ and argues that if defendants want to go for marginal gains on funding and insurance agreements, they should equally be willing to give disclosure and transparency around the financial strategy for their case defence, including the costs provisioned for defending the claim and the amounts provisioned for any potential loss on their account. 

In the News

Google fails to get claimant’s ATE premium disclosed

Google has failed to get a claimant’s ATE premium disclosed. This is the second time the Competition Appeal Tribunal has refused to disclose a proposed representative claimant’s after-the-event insurance premiums, ruling that to do so would give Google as defendant an ‘unfair tactical advantage’. 

Before You Go

Never miss a thing in the litigation finance market.