Funding agreement interpretation

R (PACCAR Inc.) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal

UK Supreme Court · UK · 2023 · Decided; largely mitigated by later cases

Citation/Docket: [2023] UKSC 28

Parties & Funders

Posture: Enforceability of percentage-based LFAs
Funder(s) involved: (Industry-wide impact)

Background

The Supreme Court held LFAs paying funders a percentage of damages are 'damages-based agreements', unenforceable in opt-out CAT proceedings unless DBA-compliant.

Holding & Outcome

Threw hundreds of UK funding agreements into doubt overnight; funders rewrote LFAs around multiples of outlay.

Practical Lesson

Regulatory characterization risk can strike an entire market at once. Post-PACCAR: Court of Appeal upheld revised/'future-proofed' LFAs in Sony v. Neill (2025), and the Supreme Court refused further appeal (Nov. 2025).

What Changed?

Following PACCAR, the Court of Appeal upheld revised, 'future-proofed' funding agreements in Sony v. Neill (2025), and the UK Supreme Court refused a further appeal in November 2025, giving funders a workable path forward after the initial disruption.

Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.

Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.

← Back to the Dispute Library