Outcome at a glance
By a 4–1 majority, the Supreme Court held that the percentage-based litigation funding agreements in issue were damages-based agreements. They were unenforceable because they did not comply with the applicable requirements. [1–2]
Allegations & issues
Truck manufacturers challenged funding arrangements used by proposed representatives in collective competition proceedings. [2, Background]
Key rulings & findings
The statutory definition of claims management services encompassed the funding in issue. Lady Rose dissented. [2, Judgment and Reasons]
Admissions
No admission of underlying competition misconduct arose from this funding appeal.
Disposition
Appeal allowed on 26 July 2023. [1–2]
Penalties, damages & redress
The Supreme Court did not assess cartel damages or impose a misconduct penalty in this appeal.
Restrictions & obligations
The ruling concerned funding enforceability, not a blanket prohibition on third-party litigation funding. [2]
Regulatory context
On 3 September 2026, the government told Parliament that it intended to legislate to mitigate PACCAR and regulate litigation funding when parliamentary time allowed. That statement describes proposed reform, not an enacted reversal. [3]
THE UNDERLYING RECORD
Primary sources
Read the full documents for their precise wording and context. Regulator summaries are identified separately from court records.
Court record · supremecourt.uk01 · Supreme Court · Case record and judgment, 26 July 2023 ↗Court record · supremecourt.uk02 · Supreme Court · Press summary, Background, Judgment and Reasons ↗Parliamentary record · hansard.parliament.uk03 · Hansard · Government statement on proposed reform, 3 September 2026 ↗