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 MOREParalegal Olivia Ward and Partner Tom Snelling comment in relation to White v Uber, in which the High Court in London ruled on Friday 12 June 2026 that communications between a litigation funder and claimant solicitor firms (concerning whether or not to fund a litigation) were not covered by litigation privilege.
Olivia Ward and Tom Snelling commented:
"An interesting decision handed down by the High Court on Friday in the case of White v Uber. Mr Justice Birt held that communications between the funder and claimant solicitors concerning whether or not to back claims were not covered by litigation privilege, as the dominant purpose was considering whether to finance the claim, and not for purpose of conducting litigation. It appears to have been immaterial that the documents were not included within the scope of the agreed DRD.
Whilst Mr Justice Birt conceded that there may be some circumstances in which communications between the funder and the solicitors may attract litigation privilege, the message is clear: "[t]he funder's decision to fund litigation is not itself conduct of litigation". Mishcon de Reya have therefore been ordered to review the documents and disclose any material concerning the knowledge of any individual drivers, subject to protections by legal advice privilege.
This case serves as an important reminder to would-be claimants seeking litigation funding that any communications with funders may be disclosable, and to consider carefully what information is provided. This decision is also beneficial for any defendants seeking to challenge group claims, as it provides another avenue for obtaining information which may reveal the claimants' true state of knowledge, and may provide them with a second bite of the cherry."
Further background on this ruling may be found in the following Law360 article, here.
