In this article, Director of Legal Finance Jordan Walsh explores the evolving criteria
for securing funding for group claims in England and Wales and sets out key practical
considerations for litigants
In conversations with claimants and law firms, I am often asked what funders actually look for when determining if a group claim in England and Wales is suitable for funding.
It’s a fair question, and one that comes up more frequently as litigation finance providers apply increasingly rigorous criteria.
Focusing on opt-in group actions, this article explains why strong legal merits remain essential but also why, with the benefit of lived experience and data, other factors now play an equally critical role in funding decisions.
From Legal Merit to Legal Team
Strong legal merits are still necessary, but no longer sufficient on their own to secure funding. Today, the quality and experience of the legal team advancing the claim is a decisive factor.
If you’re proposing, say, a High Court group action against ExampleCo for its overly-combustible toasters, a funder will almost certainly want to understand your team’s track record in group litigation.
Funders know how easy it is to underestimate the challenges of managing a large group of claimants. Be ready to demonstrate:
- Track record. Are you able to provide a positive track record of group claims litigated by you or individuals in your team?
- Bookbuilding experience. Can you show a history of building large claimant groups? How do you ensure you select the correct claims management companies, introducers, or marketing providers?
- Client management – How are you going to obtain instructions from and update your own clients? Will you have digital questionnaires or other technology to assist? What resource will you dedicate to client management? And, topically, is your approach to resourcing compliant following the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025].
Strategy and Budgeting Pitfalls
Effective budgeting starts with identifying the major milestones in a case: statements of case, case management conferences, disclosure, pre-trial review, and trial.
But in group litigation, you need lateral thinking too. Not least, because you need to plan specific workstreams in advance.
For example, other firms may also wish to hold ExampleCo to account. You may already have considered the work involved in obtaining a Group Litigation Order in the High Court. But have you allowed for the possibility of a carriage dispute, where you must show the court why your team should be the lead solicitors going forward?
Have you thought about how you’ll agree a co-operative framework for a steering committee of lead law firms? Or whether you’re looking to outsource some work to other firms through agency agreements, potentially generating savings in fees and disbursements at the cost of ceding control of the litigation?
Have you considered how similar cases have played out globally and any lessons that can be learned from them in terms of witness & expert evidence, or settlement?
And finally, assume you win a resounding victory against ExampleCo, you’ll then need to distribute proceeds to hundreds or thousands of expectant clients. Will this be handled in-house, or will you engage an external service provider (some even offer smartphone apps for this purpose)?
Good funding proposals anticipate these pathways, and include a realistic contingency budget for litigation’s inevitable unknowns.
Quantum Assessment
Our experience shows that many cases do not meet their initial quantum estimates at conclusion.
Today’s funders value reasoned quantum estimates that set out a range of possible outcomes and apply conservative assumptions.
In group actions, consider whether the average claimant’s damages justify the economics of the claim. Where firms are engaged in an opt-in action, they must usually recruit individual claimants one at a time, typically via a claims management company or introducer. As such, individual damages usually need to be relatively high — in the thousands — to offset marketing and onboarding costs.
Firms that clearly link their quantum analysis to the overall economics of the case are best placed to attract funding.
Case Study: How Preparation Shapes Funding Outcomes
Two recent applications I assessed illustrate how preparation affects funding decisions.
In the first, a claimant team proposed a group claim supported by persuasive legal analysis and strong precedent, almost a “slam dunk” on the merits (if such things existed!)
However, their quantum analysis was underdeveloped, and even in a best-case scenario, the economics didn’t justify the investment. Funding was declined.
By contrast, another recent group claim was approved swiftly. The legal team submitted a comprehensive pack covering litigation strategy, bookbuilding, client management, and settlement planning. They presented a reasoned quantum analysis (with gaps to be filled through disclosure) and demonstrated how it supported the case economics.
This preparation allowed us to assess the case quickly, inspired confidence in the team’s ability to manage complex litigation, and, importantly, enabled us to offer more competitive pricing aligned with the case’s risk profile.
Conclusion
Group litigation funding in England and Wales has evolved. Legal merits remain foundational, but funders now assess claims through a wider lens: one that includes team capability, strategic foresight, and economic viability.
The most successful proposals are those that anticipate complexity, plan for the practical realities of group litigation, and present a coherent case from start to finish.
As the market matures, so too must the approach to funding.
It’s time for practitioners to embed strategic thinking into the earliest stages of case development and often this involves greater emphasis on the non-legal and human aspects of a case. That way the legal community can help ensure that group actions are not only fundable, but ultimately successful in delivering meaningful redress.
Reproduced from Practical Law with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com. To discuss group litigation funding, contact the team.
