Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

The Arkin cap re-visited: How much should a litigation funder of unsuccessful litigation pay towards costs?

In a decision relevant to the fledgling litigation funding industry in the Cayman Islands, in Chapelgate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Limited v Money [2020] EWCA Civ 246 the English Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no fetter on the court’s broad discretion to make cost orders against non-party litigation funders.

You can read about the facts of this case and the first instance decision here, in which the High Court made a costs order against the non-party litigation funder and refused to apply the so called ‘Arkin cap’ (by which a funder’s liability is capped at the amount of the funding it advanced). 

The Court of Appeal affirmed that first instance decision and held that the Arkin cap is not a binding rule, and that “the only immutable principle is that the discretion must be exercised justly”. However, the Court of Appeal also left open the door to the application of the cap in appropriate circumstances. The Court noted that the cap is more likely to be an appropriate solution where the funder has funded only a discrete part of the litigation, but that the potential return to the funder if the case is successful is also likely to be a relevant consideration.

The Arkin cap re-visited: How much should a litigation funder of unsuccessful litigation pay towards costs?

Leave A Comment