Blog
This is not a love song: Song & Zhao v Smith & Others
Richard Clayman
It was widely expected that the government would introduce legislation to clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, following the landmark decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others in 2023.
In PACCAR, the Supreme Court held that regular third-party litigation funding agreements where a return is calculated based on a percentage of damages recovered can be construed as damages-based agreements for the purposes of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Damages-based agreements are strictly regulated and must meet certain criteria to be enforceable. PACCAR meant that many more litigation funding agreements had to comply with strict conditions to be enforceable, and became vulnerable to challenge. Damages-based agreements are also not permitted in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
As a result of PACCAR, cases in the CAT reduced significantly. It has also had a broad impact on the wider funding market. Claimants have faced uncertainty about whether they can secure funding from third parties in order to bring a claim against a well-resourced opponent.
In response, the Civil Justice Council issued a report in June 2025, recommending urgent legislation to reverse the effect of PACCAR. The new legislation would clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, and would introduce a new framework to regulate funding agreements.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed as recently as December 2025 that the government would put forward this legislation “when parliamentary time allows”. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services said at the time that “the Supreme Court ruling has left claimants in unacceptable limbo, denying them of a clear route to justice”. In a letter to the Chair of the Justice Select Committee in January 2026, the Minister again confirmed the government’s intention to legislate on the issue. It was listed as expected legislation in the House of Commons Library Research Briefing, published on 11 May 2026.
It was therefore notable that the King’s Speech contained no reference to litigation funding agreements. This represents a significant set-back, as whilst it does not mean that legislation cannot be introduced, the issue is clearly not a priority for the forthcoming parliamentary session.
The position looks to remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. Litigation funding agreements need to be drafted carefully, to avoid a challenge that they are in effect a damages-based agreement. Funders and potential claimants must consider the terms of their funding arrangements carefully. For now, the agreement based solely on a multiple of the capital outlay is the way forward.
If you would like any further advice on funding litigation, please contact Michael Tyler.
Michael is a Partner and the Head of the Costs Team with over 18 years’ experience in the field of costs law. He is the ‘go to individual’ when it comes to Part 36 offers and negotiation strategy of high value costs matters and insurance coverage.
Hannah is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. Hannah advises on a broad range of contentious matters for clients that include individuals, corporates, trustees and professionals.
During this year’s London International Disputes Week (LIDW), we explored how sanctions regimes are affecting the UK and offshore landscape.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Song & Zhao v Smith & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 719, provides some useful reminders about the interplay between alleged breaches of director’s duties, insolvency and the unfair prejudice remedy.
For a number of sports, this time of year traditionally marks the end of the season - a moment when professional players down tools, fans digest another campaign, and those who work in and around sport draw breath.
The Fair Work Agency (FWA) was established under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) on 7 April 2026 as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, consolidating labour market enforcement functions previously carried out by other authorities.
This Dementia Action Week, we are shining a light on an issue that affects thousands of families across the UK: the misappropriation of assets from people living with dementia.
Although the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026 contained an ambitious 37 bills for the next parliamentary session, there was a notable exception for litigators.
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of January - March 2026.
Many people mistakenly believe that once they've established residency outside the UK, HMRC's authority over their tax affairs ceases to exist. However, HMRC retains the power to examine historical matters stretching back up to two decades in the most serious cases, and UK-situated assets remain within their jurisdiction regardless of where the owner physically resides.
Costs in tax litigation often catch even experienced advisors off guard. Unlike other areas of civil litigation, where costs consequences are ever-present and a continuous strategic consideration, proceedings before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) are often approached with less emphasis on potential costs exposure.
Privacy and confidentiality in tax cases have always been important, particularly where the taxpayer is someone in the public eye. Whilst a tax enquiry, or indeed litigation, does not mean that the taxpayer has ‘done something wrong’, there are certain negative inferences made by the public and media which could impact future opportunities for the individual or corporate involved.
One of the benefits of an appeal before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) is that it is seen as less formal than an appeal in the Higher Courts. However, the Court of Appeal's recent ruling in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare [2026] is a reminder in case it was needed that deadlines matter in tax disputes and securing permission for a late appeal is not guaranteed.
Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 provides one of the most important protections available for shareholders - allowing a shareholder to apply to the court by petition for relief where “the company’s affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself),…”. These claims are often termed as “corporate divorce”.
The 2026 Winter Olympic Games in Italy are in full swing, showcasing athletic excellence on the world stage. At the time of writing, British hopes remain high despite some agonisingly close finishes, with Kirsty Muir, Mia Brookes, Jen Dodds and Bruce Mouat all delivering thrilling performances that placed them just outside the medals.
2025 was a notable year for arbitration in England & Wales, marked by legislative change, technological advances, and significant judicial developments that continue to shape the arbitration landscape.
2025 produced many interesting decisions in trust and estate disputes in the courts of England & Wales. We consider just a few of those key decisions below, which illustrate that the outcome in cases of this nature remains highly dependent on the particular facts of the case and available evidence.
There has been a trend in recent years of seeking to use data protection claims as a means of obtaining redress for reputational harm, which would traditionally have been sought through defamation proceedings.
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of October - December 2025.
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
The recent Supreme Court judgment in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC marks a significant development in English contract law.
The decision arose from an appeal against an arbitration award and addresses the fundamental question of whether the so called “deemed fulfilment” principle established by the 1881 Scottish Appeal case of Mackay v Dick exists in English Law.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print