London court rejects Innsworth's bid to increase its share of the £200 million Mastercard settlement, backing tribunal finding that greater return would have been excessive
A London court has rejected a challenge by litigation funder Innsworth seeking a larger share of the £200 million ($268 million) settlement reached with Mastercard. The court backed the finding of an appeals tribunal that awarding Innsworth a greater return would have been 'excessive,' according to Law360. The decision was handed down on Wednesday 10 June. The case sits within the broader context of UK collective proceedings (group litigation in which a class of claimants brings claims together, typically for competition law infringements) and the growing role of third-party litigation funding in financing such actions. Litigation funders such as Innsworth provide capital to claimants in exchange for a share of any recovery — typically structured as a multiple of the invested capital or a percentage of the proceeds. Courts and tribunals have increasingly been asked to assess whether the returns claimed by funders are proportionate, particularly following legislative and judicial scrutiny of funding arrangements in UK collective proceedings. This ruling — rejecting Innsworth's bid for an enhanced share on grounds of excessiveness — reinforces the principle that tribunals retain supervisory oversight over funder returns, even where the underlying funding agreement was commercially negotiated. For disputes and litigation funding practitioners, the case is a reminder that courts will look behind contractual funding terms when the result appears disproportionate to the funder's risk and contribution.
Why this matters
This ruling contributes to the developing UK case law on litigation funder return caps and proportionality review. The 'excessive' standard applied by the tribunal — and upheld by the London court — signals judicial willingness to override contractual funding terms where the outcome appears disproportionate, which has direct implications for how funders structure their agreements and how claimant lawyers negotiate funding terms. The Mastercard collective proceedings are among the highest-profile UK competition damages actions, meaning this ruling will be closely read by funders, claimant firms, and defendants managing exposure in ongoing collective actions. The case also intersects with the broader UK policy debate about regulating litigation funding, which remains active following the Supreme Court's PACCAR ruling and subsequent legislative discussions.
On the Ground
On a litigation funding dispute or collective proceedings matter, a trainee would assist with disclosure review and categorisation, chronology preparation, and court filing and service. Where costs and funder return calculations are in issue, they would also assist with preparing and checking costs schedules.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“Following this ruling, how would you advise a litigation funder structuring a new funding agreement for a UK competition collective proceedings claim to minimise the risk of a court later finding the agreed return 'excessive'?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved