Henry and Amy’s article was published in the Financial Remedies Journal, 5 June 2023, and can be found here.
Living under an LSPO
Commentary on legal services payment orders (LSPOs) often concerns their effect on those required to fund them. That is not hard to understand. The (usually) substantial payment to an opposing firm to fund work perceived as contrary to the payer’s interest is never an enjoyable experience, however important a contribution it might make to access to justice and, ultimately, the proceedings’ constructive resolution.
However, life in receipt of an LSPO is also no bed of roses. This article reflects on this aspect in the context of the developing jurisprudence on such orders and to anticipate developments that might be required to make them manageable. Much of the discussion may also have wider relevance, in the context of not only pent-up fury on the bench as to the size of costs generally¹ and the accompanying discussion of costs capping, but also the threats to the litigation loan market. If the pending appeal of the decision in Simon v Simon (Integro Funding Ltd (‘Level’) intervening) [2022] EWFC 29 goes against Level, we may see a much-reduced litigation loan market, bringing more cases into LSPO territory.
Read the full article: financialremediesjournal.com
¹ See e.g. Gallagher v Gallagher (No 2) (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 53, YC v ZC [2022] EWFC 137, WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40, Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27, A v M [2021] EWFC 89, Crowther v Crowther [2021] EWFC 88 and Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 50.
