Third party funding in the Dubai International Finance Centre

News / / Dubai

Interest in third party funding (“TPF”) has been on the rise in recent years with a number of common law jurisdictions relaxing the ancient laws regarding maintenance and champerty in relation to TPF arrangements. Formerly both crimes and torts in these jurisdictions, including England and Wales, maintenance is unjustifiably providing financial assistance for civil proceedings and champerty is maintenance in return for a share of the proceeds. As a matter of public policy, champertous agreements are unenforceable but, as reported in our last Bulletin, properly conducted TPF has been held to be in the public interest and not champertous. We have previously noted the developments with regard to TPF in Singapore and Hong Kong is due to follow suit shortly.

Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) is a free zone within the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). DIFC is a common law jurisdiction, an enclave within the UAE’s otherwise civil law legal system. The DIFC free zone has its own courts (“DIFC Courts”), where proceedings are governed by the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) closely modeled on the English Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”).

Whilst the DIFC free zone has its own legislation, it is silent on the issue of champerty. In principle, English cases have persuasive authority in the DIFC Courts, but the DIFC Courts have recently issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017 (“the PD”) in relation to TPF. This creates new rules that are very similar but not identical to the position in the English courts so any English law precedent should be approached with care. In adopting the PD, the DIFC Courts have opted for a light-handed approach to regulation with the main requirement being that of disclosure.

The CPR does not require the funded party to disclose the fact of TPF although it is possible to obtain a court order to that effect (Wall v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm)). The DIFC Courts by contrast require the funded party to disclose the fact of funding and the identity of the funder. The court may also order that party to disclose the terms of the funding agreement. This move towards transparency has been welcomed by professional funders. Indeed, it is often said that it can work to the advantage of the funded party to disclose that a third party has sufficient faith in and support for the claim.

Further, the RDC sets out the standards which the defendant has to meet in order to obtain an order for security for costs and the PD clarifies that the court will take into account the fact of disclosure when making a determination on the application for security for costs, but the fact of funding by itself shall not be determinative.

The position in relation to security for costs orders against funders is similar to that of the CPR. The defendant may seek an order for security for costs against the third party funder and the court may make this order if it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to do so.

The PD also confirms that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to make costs orders against third party funders although it is silent on the amount of costs that can be so recovered. The PD says that it is issued without prejudice to future decisions of the DIFC Courts regarding validity of TPF agreements. So far the DIFC Courts have demonstrated that in principle they will recognize the validity of such agreements and will make orders securing the rights of funders as demonstrated in the recent satellite litigation in the case of Al Khorafi & ors v Bank Sarasin- Alpen (ME) Ltd and Bank Sarasin & Co Ltd.

The continuing development and maturing of the DIFC Courts as a common law jurisdiction has already made it an attractive new market for third party funders in recent years and we expect that the attention given by the DIFC Courts to this method of funding litigation will give further confidence to funders and encourage litigants to consider this option. 

Mohamed El Hawawy

Mohamed El Hawawy Joint Managing Partner, Dubai

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / UAE Ministerial Directive Gives the Green Light towards Allowing Enforcement of English Court Judgments onshore the UAE

21-09-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

On 13 September 2022, the UAE Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a landmark directive to the President of the Dubai Courts, referring to a recent English Court judgment in Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri (2020) EWHC 75 (QB) which enforced a UAE Court judgment, and urging the Dubai Courts to take requisite steps to follow the principle of reciprocity when it comes to enforcing English Court judgments in the UAE.

UAE Ministerial Directive Gives the Green Light towards Allowing Enforcement of English Court Judgments onshore the UAE

News / Climate change litigation update: Derivative claim dismissed

06-07-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

McGaughey & Anor v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) On 24 May 2022, the High Court refused a claim brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.

Climate change litigation update: Derivative claim dismissed

News / Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

12-05-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Refund guarantees are often described as the cornerstones to shipbuilding projects and the buyer’s main security. Although they do not strictly form part of the shipbuilding contract, a shipbuilding project is unlikely to go ahead at all without one. It is therefore important to understand the different types of guarantee instruments, and the impact each has in practice on the guarantor’s obligations to pay and the buyer’s entitlement to recovery. A well-drafted guarantee provides certainty to the parties and strikes a balance between their respective entitlements and obligations.

Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

News / You will be estopped if you cross the line

04-04-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Estoppel is a useful tool in litigation, which is usually used to bind one party to a statement or a promise that it has previously expressed causing another to accept or adopt it for the purpose of their legal relations. The Court’s recent ruling in Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA (2) Tower Resources PLC addresses estoppel by convention and recognises the requirement for the common assumption created between the parties to be clear and unequivocal. In this article, we focus on the specifics of the Court decision.

You will be estopped if you cross the line

News / Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

29-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

On 24 March 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a second man, Paul Bond, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to alleged wrongdoing by Unaoil. 

Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

News / The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby

08-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

As we approach the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020, a number of judgments are coming out of the English Courts which are providing useful guidance on how the English Courts are treating claims concerning Covid-19, especially in a force majeure context.

The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby