A recent Court of Appeal judgment has drawn attention across the legal and funding sectors, addressing key questions around the treatment of funders in collective proceedings. The ruling, which stems from a long-running dispute involving Apple, may have broader implications for how such cases are managed moving forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Appeal sided last week with litigation funders in case that had large ramifications for the industry.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
As part of a long-running CAT dispute, Apple appealed whether the CAT had the ability to order the funders be paid out of the damages awarded, prior to the payment of the class.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
The court unanimously ruled that funders can take fees before any damages are doled out to class members. The court agreed with the CAT that there are requisite safeguards in place, both from the CAT\u2019s own powers (such as the ability to refuse to certify a class or a CR if it has concerns) and from the LFA (such as in this case, where the CR and acting solicitor had \u201cindependent control\u201d over proceedings). Moreover, the court found that under 47C3(a) and (b) of the Competition Act 1998, the CAT has \u201cwide unrestricted powers\u201d to make, in the words of the court in Le Patourel<\/em>, \u201cany case management order it sees fit\u2026 to ensure that funders and representatives are paid.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rejecting Apple\u2019s submissions regarding jurisdiction, the court concluded \u201cthat the CAT does have jurisdiction to order the funder\u2019s fee or return can be paid out of the damages\u2026 in priority to the class\u201d and that whether the CAT would make such an order falls under its supervisory jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n <br><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Chambers ranked barristers appeared for both the appellants and respondent. Our ranking tables for: Commercial Dispute Resolution<\/a>, Competition<\/a> and Costs<\/a> can be found by clicking the above links. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lord Wolfson KC<\/a> of One Essex Court led Lucinda Cunningham of Matrix Chambers for the Appellants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nicholas Bacon KC<\/a> of 4 New Square acted for the Respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","categories":[],"tags":[],"publication":[],"blocks":[{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n A recent Court of Appeal judgment has drawn attention across the legal and funding sectors, addressing key questions around the treatment of funders in collective proceedings. The ruling, which stems from a long-running dispute involving Apple, may have broader implications for how such cases are managed moving forward.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n A recent Court of Appeal judgment has drawn attention across the legal and funding sectors, addressing key questions around the treatment of funders in collective proceedings. The ruling, which stems from a long-running dispute involving Apple, may have broader implications for how such cases are managed moving forward.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Court of Appeal sided last week with litigation funders in case that had large ramifications for the industry.\u00a0<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Court of Appeal sided last week with litigation funders in case that had large ramifications for the industry.\u00a0<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n <br><\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n <br><\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Background","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"Z1QSKSQ","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-Z1QSKSQ"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n As part of a long-running CAT dispute, Apple appealed whether the CAT had the ability to order the funders be paid out of the damages awarded, prior to the payment of the class.\u00a0<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n As part of a long-running CAT dispute, Apple appealed whether the CAT had the ability to order the funders be paid out of the damages awarded, prior to the payment of the class.\u00a0<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n <br><\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n <br><\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Ruling: ","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"1umoce","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-1umoce"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The court unanimously ruled that funders can take fees before any damages are doled out to class members. The court agreed with the CAT that there are requisite safeguards in place, both from the CAT\u2019s own powers (such as the ability to refuse to certify a class or a CR if it has concerns) and from the LFA (such as in this case, where the CR and acting solicitor had \u201cindependent control\u201d over proceedings). Moreover, the court found that under 47C3(a) and (b) of the Competition Act 1998, the CAT has \u201cwide unrestricted powers\u201d to make, in the words of the court in Le Patourel<\/em>, \u201cany case management order it sees fit\u2026 to ensure that funders and representatives are paid.\u201d <\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The court unanimously ruled that funders can take fees before any damages are doled out to class members. The court agreed with the CAT that there are requisite safeguards in place, both from the CAT\u2019s own powers (such as the ability to refuse to certify a class or a CR if it has concerns) and from the LFA (such as in this case, where the CR and acting solicitor had \u201cindependent control\u201d over proceedings). Moreover, the court found that under 47C3(a) and (b) of the Competition Act 1998, the CAT has \u201cwide unrestricted powers\u201d to make, in the words of the court in Le Patourel<\/em>, \u201cany case management order it sees fit\u2026 to ensure that funders and representatives are paid.\u201d <\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Rejecting Apple\u2019s submissions regarding jurisdiction, the court concluded \u201cthat the CAT does have jurisdiction to order the funder\u2019s fee or return can be paid out of the damages\u2026 in priority to the class\u201d and that whether the CAT would make such an order falls under its supervisory jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Rejecting Apple\u2019s submissions regarding jurisdiction, the court concluded \u201cthat the CAT does have jurisdiction to order the funder\u2019s fee or return can be paid out of the damages\u2026 in priority to the class\u201d and that whether the CAT would make such an order falls under its supervisory jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n <br><\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n <br><\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Parties: ","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"Z2uhR3q","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-Z2uhR3q"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Chambers ranked barristers appeared for both the appellants and respondent. Our ranking tables for: Commercial Dispute Resolution<\/a>, Competition<\/a> and Costs<\/a> can be found by clicking the above links. <\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Chambers ranked barristers appeared for both the appellants and respondent. Our ranking tables for: Commercial Dispute Resolution<\/a>, Competition<\/a> and Costs<\/a> can be found by clicking the above links. <\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Lord Wolfson KC<\/a> of One Essex Court led Lucinda Cunningham of Matrix Chambers for the Appellants.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Lord Wolfson KC<\/a> of One Essex Court led Lucinda Cunningham of Matrix Chambers for the Appellants.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Nicholas Bacon KC<\/a> of 4 New Square acted for the Respondent.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n