Alistair Gray’s recent report on the declining numbers of commercial lawsuits being filed in England and Wales (Report, February 24) suggests that the litigation funding sector is set to be one of the big losers. I doubt that many readers will be sympathetic.
While the article may be correct that a Supreme Court decision has changed the way that funders receive a return on their investments in litigation, many have shifted to a “multiple” based model instead, in some cases demanding as much as 12 times the value of investment made.
The article makes perfectly clear that the overall health of the legal sector remains in excellent shape, even if litigation has dipped over the past year. Moreover, we should not be measuring access to justice and other outcomes by the amount of litigation that is taking place in the courts. We know for example that in the recent Walter Merrick vs Mastercard settlement, which dragged on for close to a decade, consumers stand to be awarded just a couple of pounds each, while the funders and lawyers receive tens of millions. This does not look like a good advert for access to justice.
Gray notes that alternatives like arbitration are becoming increasingly more popular, and it is encouraging to see the arbitration bill move closer to becoming law.
I hope that policymakers will continue to promote the message that litigation should only be used as a last resort and when all other options have been exhausted.
Seema Kennedy
Executive Director, Fair Civil Justice, London EC4, UK