London Court Hears Challenge to Litigation Funder's Share of £200 Million Mastercard Mass Claim Settlement
A London court is hearing a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from the £200 million ($269 million) settlement of a UK mass claim against Mastercard, with litigation funder Innsworth challenging the allocation of settlement funds on the basis that it received insufficient profit relative to the risk it took on in backing the claim. Counsel for the claimant side argued on Wednesday that the court should reject Innsworth's challenge, contending that the funder received adequate profit given how the litigation actually unfolded. The case turns on the terms of the litigation funding agreement (LFA) — the contract between a funder and the claimants (or their lawyers) that governs how proceeds are split on settlement or judgment — and whether the returns Innsworth received were consistent with those contractual terms and fair in light of the claim's trajectory. This dispute sits at the intersection of two live UK legal debates: the enforceability and regulation of LFAs following the Supreme Court's ruling in PACCAR (which narrowed the definition of valid funding agreements), and the broader question of how mass claims — particularly opt-out collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) — should allocate settlement proceeds between claimants, lawyers, and funders. The Mastercard mass claim has been one of the UK's highest-profile collective actions, making the funder-return dispute a closely watched test case for how LFA economics play out at scale.
Why this matters
Disputes over litigation funding agreements are becoming a distinct sub-practice as the UK mass claims market matures. The PACCAR decision created uncertainty about the enforceability of damages-based agreements (DBAs — arrangements where the funder or lawyer takes a share of the damages recovered), prompting funders and claimant firms to renegotiate or restructure existing LFAs and draft future agreements more carefully. A court ruling clarifying how funder returns are assessed — whether against contractual terms alone or against broader fairness standards — will directly affect how LFAs are priced and structured going forward. For disputes lawyers, this generates advisory work on both sides: funders seeking enforcement of their contractual entitlement, and claimants or their representatives contesting what they regard as excessive funder take.
On the Ground
On a funded mass claim mandate, a trainee would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of documents relevant to the litigation funding agreement terms, prepare a chronology of key events in the claim's history for use in the distribution dispute, and assist with paginating the trial bundle for the hearing.
Interview prep
Soundbite
LFA enforcement disputes are now a standalone practice area — PACCAR created structural uncertainty that every funded UK mass claim must now navigate.
Question you might get
“Following the Supreme Court's PACCAR decision, what are the key structuring considerations for a litigation funding agreement in a UK mass claim, and how has the decision affected the funder market?”
Full answer
A London court is adjudicating a challenge by funder Innsworth to the distribution of the £200 million Mastercard mass claim settlement, with the claimant side arguing Innsworth received sufficient profit on the terms agreed. This matters because it tests how litigation funding agreements are interpreted and enforced in the context of large UK collective actions — a question that has become acutely live since the Supreme Court's PACCAR ruling narrowed which funding structures are legally valid. For law firms advising funders or claimant teams, the outcome will shape how LFAs are drafted: courts scrutinising funder returns under a 'sufficient profit' standard have different implications to pure contractual enforcement. The broader picture is that the UK mass claims market is generating post-settlement disputes as a second wave of litigation — meaning disputes practices will see sustained revenue from funded claim lifecycle work beyond the primary claim itself.
My notes
saved