In the most important funding decision in 20 years, the UK Supreme Court has declared in R. (PACCAR Inc. and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, [2023] 1 W.L.R. 2594 that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, a third-party funder’s litigation funding agreement (LFA) is a damages-based agreement (DBA) because third-party funders are offering “claims management services”. This decision, which overturned both the earlier Divisional Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal decisions, and long-held industry and judicial understanding, has had an immediate impact upon UK litigation. Many LFAs will require immediate re-negotiation, given their non-compliance with the DBA legislation; but for some, the ramifications are much more serious. This article traces the legislation, soft law and law reform activity which preceded this momentous event; it suggests that a key principle of statutory interpretation which governed the outcome might arguably be re-evaluated in future case law; it discusses the possibility of legislative reversal; and it predicts the ramifications of the PACCAR decision upon (especially consumer) litigation unless reversed.

在 20 年来最重要的资助决定中，英国最高法院在 R.（PACCAR Inc. 等）诉竞争上诉法庭等 [2023] UKSC 28, [2023] 1 WLR 2594 案中宣布，根据法律解释，第三方资助者的诉讼资助协议（LFA）是基于损害赔偿的协议（DBA），因为第三方资助者提供“索赔管理服务”。这一裁决推翻了早先的分院法院和竞争上诉法庭的裁决以及长期以来的行业和司法谅解，对英国诉讼产生了直接影响。鉴于许多 LFA 不符合 DBA 立法，因此需要立即重新谈判；但对一些人来说，后果要严重得多。本文追溯了这一重大事件之前的立法、软法和法律改革活动；它表明，管辖结果的法定解释的关键原则可能会在未来的判例法中重新评估；它讨论了立法逆转的可能性；它还预测了 PACCAR 判决对（尤其是消费者）诉讼的影响，除非推翻。