Third party funding (TPF) is an arrangement whereby a party (the
funder), which typically has no prior interest in a dispute, will
fund the legal costs of a claimant, usually on the basis that the
funder will only be paid out of the proceeds of any amounts
recovered following a successful outcome in the claim. Often the
amount of the funder's recovery is a pre-determined percentage
of the amount recovered by the claimant.
In May 2016, BLG and Arbitration Place co-sponsored a panel
discussion entitled Third Party Funding in Arbitration: Views from
Counsel, Funders and Arbitrators. The panel included speakers from
each professional perspective, including counsel (BLG litigation
partner, Ira Nishisato), funder (Senior Counsel at Vannin Capital,
Jeffery Commission), and arbitrator (Arbitration Place member
arbitrator, The Hon. Ian Binnie).
The discussion provided insight into the unique challenges and
opportunities involved in pursuing claims with the involvement of a
third party funder. In particular, the panel raised the following
Third Party Funding is
growing: third party funding is growing in Canada, but it
is still less prevalent than in other jurisdictions such as
England, the US, and Australia. Nevertheless, Canadian Courts have
determined that third party funding is a legitimate practice in
appropriate cases, that can offer greater access to justice and
effective scrutiny of legal claims and risks.
Third Party Funding has
broadening appeal: as explained by the participating
funder, many users of third party funding are not impecunious or
otherwise unable to fund their own legal claims. Rather, third
party funding has become an attractive option for businesses
seeking to manage and spread the risks associated with long or
complex legal proceedings. This is particularly the case in certain
sectors where current margins cannot justify the immediate pursuit
of legal claims, which are characterized by long time horizons and
Third Party Funding is
flexible: funders and claimants are able to negotiate the
terms of a funding arrangement at the outset of proceedings. The
terms of funding can be flexible to suit the risk profile of the
claim and other factors relevant to the conduct or outcome of the
TPF can also introduce legal and practical challenges for
managing the relationship between the funder and counsel, as well
as between counsel and adjudicators. These complexities are best
managed by experienced counsel in order to avoid unexpected
developments in the proceedings that may arise by virtue of the
involvement of a third party funder. Managed correctly, TPF may
offer a means to recover losses in a variety of sectors and
projects as part of a robust and balanced legal strategy.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).