The government’s decision to delay the reintroduction of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill until the Civil Justice Council completes its review has sparked significant debate.
- Justice minister Lord Ponsonby announced the postponement, citing the ongoing review by the Civil Justice Council as the reason for the delay.
- The bill, initially proposed to counteract the Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR, was not included in the new legislative agenda post-election.
- Critics express disappointment, highlighting the bill’s importance in preserving access to justice through regulated litigation funding.
- The review, headed by Mr Justice Simon Picken and Dr John Sorabji, aims to address concerns and provide a final report by next summer.
The government’s decision to delay the reintroduction of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has drawn attention within the legal community. Justice minister Lord Ponsonby informed Parliament that the bill would not be reintroduced until after the Civil Justice Council’s review on funding is concluded next year.
The bill, which was introduced by the previous government, aimed to reverse the impact of last year’s Supreme Court ruling in PACCAR. However, it did not progress through Parliament before the elections and was subsequently not included in the current government’s legislative programme.
Lord Ponsonby emphasised the importance of third-party litigation funding in enabling access to justice, particularly in large-scale and costly cases. He acknowledged concerns regarding the need for increased regulation and safeguards for claimants within these funding agreements.
The Civil Justice Council’s review, led by Mr Justice Simon Picken and Dr John Sorabji, seeks to thoroughly assess the existing state of third-party litigation funding. An interim report is anticipated this summer, with a comprehensive final report expected next summer.
Neil Purslow, chairman of the International Legal Finance Association, criticised the government’s decision, arguing it deprioritises access to justice. Asserting that the need for reform is clear and urgent, Purslow expressed concern over governmental inaction.
Highlighting a broader context, a separate review by the Legal Services Board earlier this year acknowledged litigation funding’s role in supporting public interest and access to justice, though it noted the niche nature of such funding in consumer assistance.
The delay in the bill’s reintroduction has raised concerns over the government’s commitment to reforming litigation funding for access to justice.
