England & Wales Court of Appeal · UK · 2021 · Decided
Citation/Docket: [2021] EWCA Civ 29
Posture: Funded claimants and their funder vs. defendants seeking security for costs
Funder(s) involved: Therium group entities
Hundreds of investors in the Ingenious film and games schemes sued the promoters and banks, several of them funded by Therium entities. Defendants sought security for costs directly against the funder, including for claimants who were UK-resident and so not themselves susceptible to a security order.
The Court of Appeal confirmed security for costs can be ordered against a litigation funder even where no order could be made against the claimant itself. A sufficiently capitalised, solvent corporate funder will not normally be required to provide security. Only rarely should a defendant be required to give a cross-undertaking in damages in the funded claimant's favour.
A funder's balance sheet is now part of the litigation. Thinly capitalised special purpose funding vehicles invite a security application that can stall a case before it is heard, so ask a prospective funder who actually stands behind the money.
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.