Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd

Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd

A professional funder who does not control or influence the conduct of litigation, and whose funding is essential for an impecunious claimant to access the courts, should not be subject to a non-party costs order solely because of a profit interest or failure to provide for adverse costs, unless there is a material risk or actual interference with the due administration of justice.

Parties
Claimant: Yeshekel Arkin; 1st Defendant: Borchard Lines Limited; 2nd, 3rd, 4th Defendants; 3rd, 5th, 8th, 10th Part 20 Defendants: Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd & Ors; 11th Part 20 Defendants: Managers and Processors of Claims (MPC); 1st and 6th Part 20 Defendant: 1st and 6th Part 20 Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation (costs Application) / Post Trial Application for Non Party Costs Order
Outcome
Application for costs against MPC refused.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Litigation Funding, Champerty and Maintenance, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Access to Justice, Public Policy in Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Access to Justice Non Party Costs Orders Litigation Funding Champerty and Maintenance Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Public Policy in Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeshekel Arkin

Claimant

Borchard Lines Limited

1st Defendant

Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd & Ors

2nd, 3rd, 4th Defendants; 3rd, 5th, 8th, 10th Part 20 Defendants

Managers and Processors of Claims (MPC)

11th Part 20 Defendants

1st and 6th Part 20 Defendant

1st and 6th Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Litigation (costs Application) / Post Trial Application for Non Party Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a professional litigation funder (MPC) should be liable for the defendants’ costs after funding an unsuccessful claimant under a conditional fee agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the terms and conduct of the funding agreement justified a non-party costs order against MPC.

Ratio Decidendi

A professional funder who does not control or influence the conduct of litigation, and whose funding is essential for an impecunious claimant to access the courts, should not be subject to a non-party costs order solely because of a profit interest or failure to provide for adverse costs, unless there is a material risk or actual interference with the due administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Application for costs against MPC refused.

Orders

  • No order for costs against Managers and Processors of Claims (MPC).