Justice should be accessible to us all, but regrettably litigation, particularly in the higher courts, can be an expensive process and thus out of reach unless you have both deep pockets and nerves of steel.
To the rescue comes a concept which, although relatively new in South Africa, has been successfully implemented overseas – Litigation funding. The “Please Call Me” case is a recent high-profile example of how the practice is starting to gain traction locally. Note that whilst some funders concentrate on commercial litigation, others have a much wider mandate.
How it works
In essence, a litigation funder steps in and takes responsibility for all legal costs associated with launching and running a legal claim. In return, the funder gets a fair share in the final award, usually between 40 – 55%. If that sounds like a lot to give away, remember the wise old proverb “Half a loaf is better than nothing” – it’s either the deep pockets and nerves of steel we mentioned above, or be very happy with your share of the prize.
If the claim fails, the funder gets paid nothing, does not reclaim the amount it has spent from you as the claim-holder and can be held liable for an adverse costs order. You don’t risk a cent – provided, of course, that your particular funding agreement provides accordingly, that you have complied fully with your obligations under the agreement, and that you have chosen a reputable funder in the first place.
Previously, claim-holders had two choices. Either they had to rely on attorneys to fund a claim under the Contingency Fees Act, which some attorneys are happy to do but others not, or they could sell the claim upfront – usually for a fraction of the claim amount. Litigation funding fills this funding gap but ask your lawyer for advice before deciding which course of action is best for you.
When should a claim-holder consider using a litigation funder?
Litigation funders will manage the claim with your attorney, as they have real interest in a successful outcome.
On application, a litigation funder will typically ask a claim-holder to sign a confidentiality agreement allowing them to review the claim. This has two effects – the funder cannot disclose the claim-holder’s confidential information, and it ensures that the claim-holder’s privileged documents (documents that cannot be used in evidence in a trial) retain their privilege.
At this stage all documents relating to the claim (both those in favour of the claim and those not so helpful) must be disclosed.
The funder must be in a position to make a call on the case’s merits. It’s useful to think of this as making disclosure to an insurer or medical aid. Hidden documents and facts can cause real problems later in the case, and in extreme cases, the funder may have a claim for damages against a non-disclosing party.
If the funder believes the claim has merits, and falls within its funding mandate, the funder and the claim-holder then enter into a funding agreement. This sets out the funder’s obligation to fund the case, its rights to share in an award, and the claim-holder’s obligations to assist in the conduct of the case.
Levelling the playing field
In the US, the UK and Australia, litigation funds have enabled claim-holders to obtain fair compensation, and have dramatically leveled the legal playing field for individuals and medium sized businesses. There is no reason litigation funding will not have the same effect in South Africa.
This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)