Table of Contents

• EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

• FEATURED REPORT 📰

• A BIT OF FUN 😄

• IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

EDITOR’S RAMBLE 🗣

Law firms love seeing “extracurriculars” in an application.

You know, things like:

• joining a society,

• playing an instrument, or…

• winning an Olympic gold medal

This week, I read an interview with Georgie Twigg MBE.

Georgie was juggling training for the Olympics with training contract applications (while at university)!

It’s a happy ending – now, she’s a senior associate at Bird & Bird.

I thought it was an inspiring story.

I know how hard it is to balance uni and law firm applications (it can feel an extra degree).

Try to keep time for the things *you* actually enjoy too (plus, talk about them in your application!)

- Idin 

FEATURED REPORT 📰

⚖️ Litigation funding is still in limbo

What's going on here?

Last year, a Supreme Court decision made it unclear whether the agreements litigation funders used were unenforceable. The government planned to fix this with a new law – but that’s now been delayed until summer 2025.

What are litigation funders?

Litigation funders are companies that cover the legal costs of big claims in exchange for a share of any money won in a case (called “damages”).

Funders are usually used where something’s happened that’s affected a big group of people, but the individual claims aren't worth pursuing one by one because of the high legal costs.

When these individual claims are combined, they add up to a large amount, making it worthwhile for litigation funders to pay the legal costs upfront in return for a portion of the total damages.

What’s the issue they’ve been facing?

Last year the Supreme Court decided the PACCAR case (here’s the actual judgment). 

Essentially, the Court ruled the payment model of receiving a share of someone else’s damages is unenforceable, which made litigation funders anxious.

This next section explains the decision in more detail… (skip if you’re not interested)

What was actually decided in PACCAR?

PACCAR was a group action claim (when people with similar complaints bring a legal action as one group) against truck manufacturers. It followed the European Commission’s ruling that the manufacturers had been working together unfairly.

The claimants relied on litigation funders – they agreed that if they won, the funders would be paid a share of their damages.

The Supreme Court decided that damages-based litigation funding agreements (where the funder is paid a proportion of the damages won) were unenforceable.

Here’s why they decided that (warning: it gets a bit technical):

1. The agreement involves the litigation funder providing financial help to the claimants, which counts as “claims management services” under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (s.419A).

2. When the funder gets paid a percentage of the damages, it meets the definition of a “damages-based agreement” according to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (s.58AA, i-ii), where the payment depends on the amount of money won.

3. These types of agreements are not allowed in “opt-out” collective claims (group claims that include everyone affected by the issue unless they opt out) under the Competitions Act 1988 (s.47C).

So, the agreements litigation funders had in place in all their “opt out” group action claims became unenforceable. Opt out claims are pretty much only limited to competition law. In other fields collective proceedings are on an “opt-in” basis (where affected people have to explicitly consent to be included).

Do we need damages-based funding agreements?

Without damages-based funding agreements, funders wouldn’t support these cases because they wouldn't get paid.

So individuals and small businesses would lose access to this way of bringing claims against big corporations (as it’s super expensive to do yourself). As a result, corporations that act badly could avoid being held accountable.

A good example is the Post Office scandal, where sub-postmasters were wrongfully convicted due to software errors. The affected individuals used damages-based funding to bring their case to court, something they couldn't have afforded on their own.

How can this problem be resolved?

🔄 Change the law: The government planned to solve the problem caused by PACCAR with a new law called the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill.

The previous Conservative government wanted to pass the Bill, but it didn’t happen before the election. The new Labour government has decided to wait, delaying the Bill until summer 2025.

📄 Change the agreements: Litigation funders could also change how they fund cases for now. Instead of getting a percentage of the damages, they could ask for something like a fixed multiple of what they invested. This method is still allowed despite the PACCAR decision and could keep these cases moving forward.

Why should law firms care?

Litigation funders fund huge cases – which means more work for law firms. And damages-based litigation funding agreements bring lots of business to law firms.

Funders in England and Wales have assets of over £2 billion, which they use to pay for legal help in group cases. If fewer cases take place because of the uncertainty and the delay of the Bill, law firms could lose out.

This would particularly affect firms with substantial collective proceeding practices like Slaughter and May, Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Herbert Smith Freehills, Addleshaw Goddard, and Ashurst.

Credit: Laura White

A BIT OF FUN 😄 

Don’t be"humbled" by your achievements — doesn’t make sense

IN OTHER NEWS 🗞

• 🎮 EU iPhone users can finally download Fortnite from Epic Games' app store, nearly four years after Apple removed it. Thanks to the EU's Digital Markets Act, Apple must allow alternative app stores on iPhones, though Epic claims Apple is still making the process difficult. This all stems from Epic bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase fees in 2020, leading to ongoing legal battles. While Fortnite isn’t back on the US App Store yet, EU users can enjoy the game again as Epic continues its fight against Apple’s app store dominance.

• 🍫 Mars, the company behind Snickers and Twix, is making a big move by buying Kellanova, the maker of Pringles, for $36 billion. This deal will bring popular brands like Pop-Tarts and Pringles under Mars' control. The acquisition is part of Mars' strategy to expand beyond just sweets, following their purchase of the healthy snack brand KIND North America in 2020. The deal should be finalised in the first half of next year. Skadden, Kirkland, Simpson Thacher and Cleary are all involved (among others).

• 🏆 A small Irish firm, Kenny Sullivan Solicitors, just won a big case against Twitter. Gary Rooney, a former Twitter employee, was fired after not agreeing to new tough work conditions set by Musk in an email sent to all staff. The email, sent shortly after Musk bought Twitter, demanded longer hours and high-intensity work. Employees had to agree by clicking ‘yes’ the next day, or it would be seen as a resignation. Rooney didn’t click, and he was let go. The tribunal ruled this was unfair dismissal, and Twitter now has to pay him €550,000 in compensation.

• 💸 Revolut is now valued at $45 billion after a recent share sale. This valuation solidifies Revolut as one of Europe’s top fintech companies. The growth has been fast, with Revolut now serving 45 million customers worldwide. Investors are excited, especially after Revolut received a UK banking licence last month, which could help draw even more customers looking for app-based banking instead of traditional banks.

AROUND THE WEB 🌐

• 🔌 Holiday: Here’s which plug you need for your next trip

• 📺️ Cool: What if YouTube had actual channels?

• 🛸 Drones: You could be seeing drone deliveries in the UK skies 

Credit: r/internetisbeautiful

STUFF THAT MIGHT HELP YOU 👌

• 📹️ Free application help: If you're applying to commercial law firms, check out my YouTube channel for actionable tips and an insight into the lifestyle of a commercial lawyer in London.