UK Supreme Court rejects Apple’s final bid to appeal on PACCAR multiples point, affirming enforceability of post-PACCAR litigation funding agreements

The UK Supreme Court has refused Apple Inc. and Visa Inc. permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) based on multiples of a funder’s investment—even if capped by recoveries—are not damages-based agreements (DBAs) and remain enforceable following the landmark PACCAR decision.

In a brief order issued 6 November 2025, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, and Lord Hamblen held that the proposed appeals did not raise “an arguable point of law,” ending Apple’s and Visa’s attempt to extend PACCAR’s reasoning to invalidate a wider class of litigation funding structures.

The applications concerned funding arrangements in collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)—including claims led by Commercial and Interregional Card Claims I Limited (CICC) and Justin Gutmann—both represented by Charles Lyndon. Apple and Visa had argued that even where a funder’s return is calculated as a multiple of its outlay, a contractual cap by reference to recoveries rendered the agreement a DBA under section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and therefore unenforceable in opt-out competition claims.

In their Notice of Objection, CICC and Gutmann called the argument “absurd,” noting that the cap exists to protect class members and “does not make the LFA ‘damages-based.’” They warned that Apple’s position would “wholly undermine the intention of Parliament” by rendering nearly all opt-out collective proceedings “impossible in practice” since “the entire landscape of collective proceedings in the CAT is one where third-party litigation funding of claims is required”.

The Supreme Court’s refusal cements a critical distinction between percentage-based DBAs, which fall within the PACCAR ruling, and multiple-based LFAs, which remain outside it. The decision offers long-awaited certainty for funders, claimants, and class representatives who restructured agreements post-PACCAR to ensure compliance, while preserving the viability of collective redress in the UK’s competition regime.

A spokesperson for Charles Lyndon, acting for the respondents, said the firm welcomed the Court’s confirmation that “well-structured, multiple-based funding agreements are lawful and essential to enable access to justice in collective proceedings.”