Litigation Funding
-
Simon v (1) Simon (2) Integro Funding Limited (‘Level’) [2024] EWFC 1602 July 2024
Peel J. The last instalment in the *Simon v Simon & Level* family court litigation. Level’s civil claim is yet to be determined. Peel J found that the family court cannot make a distributive order upon application of an intervenor to require one party to pay the other party such sum as the third-party intervenor says it is entitled to.
- Cases
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
-
Simon v (1) Simon (2) Integro Funding Limited (‘Level’) [2023] EWCA Civ 104815 September 2023
King LJ, Moylan LJ and Popplewell LJ. Appeal concerning the role of a litigation lender in financial remedy proceedings.
- Cases
- Litigation Funding
- Appeals
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
- Trusts
-
Simon v Simon & Level (Joinder) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 2921 March 2022
Nicholas Cusworth QC. Convoluted procedural history in which a consent order was sealed by the court without knowledge of other relevant applications, and W received no liquid capital capable of being used to repay her litigation funder. Funder therefore…
- Cases
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
- Setting Aside Orders (Including Barder Applications)
Can a Litigation Funder Rely on Any Form of Equitable Lien
Funding family proceedingsLS v PS [2021] EWFC 108 (23 December 2021), Roberts J concerns an application by a litigation funder (Q), as intervener in financial provision proceedings, for disclosure of material arising between a husband and wife and in rela…
- Blog
- Litigation Funding
- Equitable Lien
!25/03/2022 16:49
-
LS v PS [2021] EWHC 3508 (Fam)18 January 2022
An application by an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings for disclosure of privileged material from a PFDR was refused. The intervenor, a litigation funder, is seeking to set aside a consent order reached at the PFDR on the basis it was deliberately structured to ensure W could not meet her debt. The court acknowledged that a number of competing policy considerations were engaged, in the process attaching importance to the status of litigation funders. Whilst this application was refused on the facts, Roberts J referred the “absolute bar” (as Munby P has interpreted paragraph 6.2 PD9A) on use of anything said or done at FDR in support of a separate action in civil proceedings to the Family Procedure Rules Committee. In further judicial support for private dispute resolution, Roberts J thought it artificial to draw a distinction between the privilege attaching under paragraph 6.2 PD9A to “in-court” and private FDRs.
- Cases
- FDRs
- Privilege
- Disclosure
- Litigation Funding
- Joinder of Third Parties
©2023 Class Legal classlegal.com
