Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Abdulali Jiwaji co-authors an article on the Civil Justice Council's review of litigation funding, with a focus on access to justice, the effectiveness of litigation funding and regulatory options, which is due in Summer 2025. This article first appeared in the 3 March 2025 issue of Law.com International here.
The Civil Justice Council is carrying out a review of litigation funding, with a focus on access to justice, the effectiveness of litigation funding and regulatory options. The CJC is due to provide a full report on its recommendations in Summer 2025, after taking into account feedback from a consultation process which closes on 3 March 2025.
Litigation funding is already part of the fabric, and should generally be supported. This is particularly critical following the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR, and the upcoming review by the Court of Appeal of the implications in a number of appeals from the Competition Appeal Tribunal as to whether the use by funders of returns based on multiples of investment is legitimate.
Some claimants have clearly benefited from the ability to access litigation funding, with examples of significant funded cases resulting in all stakeholders sharing in a successful outcome.But equally, there have been examples of funded cases where the economics have not worked out well, with a low settlement number meaning that the stakeholders take a haircut, and the claimant may receive nothing.
Those firms with experience of defending funded cases do raise concerns about the impact of funding.For example, there is a perception that funding can lead to claims being put forward with a view to driving a defendant to settle to avoid irrecoverable costs, even if the merits are not strong. In such cases, even though a settlement number may be far below the actual claimed damages, this may still yield a significant return for the funder. In other cases, the involvement of a funder may lead to a block on settlement, so that once costs pass a certain level, the minimum value of any settlement would need to cover at least the funder's return in order to leave anything for the claimants.
