When many people have claims arising from similar facts, products, contracts or events, dealing with each case entirely separately can create duplication. A group litigation claim provides a way for a court to manage related claims together while preserving the fact that each claimant normally has an individual case.

In England and Wales, the formal procedure most closely associated with this process is a Group Litigation Order, commonly shortened to GLO. The important point is that a GLO is primarily a case-management mechanism. It does not automatically turn all claimants into one person or guarantee the same result for every member of the group.

What is a group litigation claim?

A group litigation claim is a collection of civil claims that share one or more important questions of fact or law. Those shared questions are called the “GLO issues” when the claims are managed under a Group Litigation Order.

For example, several claims might raise the same question about whether a product had a particular defect, whether a contractual term has a particular meaning, or whether the same event caused a common type of loss. The individual claims may still differ in matters such as the claimant’s circumstances, the extent of loss, causation and the remedy sought.

CPR Part 19 on parties and group litigation sets out the formal rules. Under rule 19.21, a GLO is an order for the case management of claims giving rise to common or related issues of fact or law.

Is it the same as a class action?

Not exactly. “Class action” is a widely used general expression, but England and Wales does not use one universal procedure carrying that name for all civil disputes. Different mechanisms can be suitable depending on the facts and the legal basis of the claims.

• Group Litigation Order: separate claims are entered on a group register and managed together around defined common issues.
• Representative proceedings: one or more parties may represent others who have the same interest, subject to the relevant rules and court directions.
• Consolidation or joinder: claims may be combined or parties joined where that is a convenient way to resolve the dispute.
• Test or lead claims: selected cases may be used to decide an issue that is relevant to other claims, with the court controlling how far the result applies.

The choice is procedural rather than cosmetic. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary’s Chancery Guide notes that parties should consider whether a GLO, representative claim, managed claims or another form of bespoke case management is the most suitable approach.

How does a Group Litigation Order begin?

A GLO may be considered before claims are issued or after relevant proceedings have already started. The proposed applicant generally needs to identify the related claims and define the common issues with enough precision for the court to manage them.

The application is made under the civil procedure rules and is supported by evidence and proposed directions. The court will consider whether group management is appropriate, whether another procedure would work better, and how the proposed group should be defined.

The official Practice Direction 19B guidance for Group Litigation explains that an application may be made by a claimant or defendant and sets out steps concerning the application, the group register, lead solicitors, case management and publicity.

The group register is the practical centre of the case

If the court makes a GLO, it must direct the establishment of a group register. Claims that meet the stated criteria are entered on that register in accordance with the order and any later directions.

Entry is significant, but it is not merely a mailing-list exercise. The order may specify the court that manages the group, the issues covered, the information that must be provided, and a date after which new claims need permission before they can be added.

A claimant normally needs to establish that their case raises at least one of the defined GLO issues. Their claim may then continue to include individual questions that are not shared by the rest of the group.

What happens after the claims are grouped?

The management court gives directions for moving the litigation forward. Those directions can change as the evidence develops, but the process commonly involves several connected stages.

1. Defining the common issues: the court identifies the questions that can be dealt with collectively.
2. Organising representation: the court may appoint or recognise a lead solicitor for claimants or defendants for particular aspects of the litigation.
3. Disclosure and evidence: documents and evidence relevant to common issues may be managed in a coordinated way, subject to the court’s directions.
4. Selecting test claims: one or more claims may proceed first to examine common issues or representative factual patterns.
5. Resolving individual issues: once shared issues are decided, the court may need to assess the circumstances and losses of individual claimants.

A judgment on a GLO issue can bind parties to claims already on the group register, unless the court orders otherwise. The court can also give directions about the effect of an order on claims entered later. That is one reason the date of entry and the wording of the GLO matter.

What are test claims?

Test claims are selected cases used to examine issues that may recur across the group. They are not necessarily intended to represent every claimant’s personal circumstances. Their purpose is to provide a court decision on defined questions, after which the remaining claims can be managed with that decision in mind.

The court may give directions about which claims should proceed as test claims. If a selected claim settles, the rules allow the court to substitute another group claim as the test claim. This helps avoid leaving a common issue unresolved solely because the first selected case has ended.

Test claims can make proceedings more orderly, but they also require careful selection. A factual feature that is unusual in one claimant’s case may not provide a useful basis for deciding an issue affecting the wider group.

How are costs and funding handled?

Costs are case-specific and depend on court orders, agreements, funding arrangements and the work required. A person considering joining a group claim should ask for clear information about legal fees, insurance, possible adverse costs exposure and how common costs will be allocated.

CPR rule 46.6 distinguishes between common costs and individual costs in GLO litigation. Unless the court orders otherwise, an order for common costs against group litigants imposes several liability for an equal proportion of those common costs. The rule also addresses individual costs and costs incurred before or after entry on the group register. The current Part 46 rules on costs in group litigation should be read alongside the particular GLO and any costs orders made in the case.

Funding models vary. Some cases may involve legal expenses insurance, litigation funding, conditional fee arrangements or other arrangements permitted by the applicable rules. The practical terms should be explained in writing before a claimant commits to the case.

For a neutral example of how legal teams may describe client representation in collective proceedings, readers should treat the linked material as separate reporting rather than as a statement of the legal rules explained here.

What happens to settlement?

A group litigation claim may settle in whole or in part, but settlement does not necessarily mean that every claimant receives the same amount. Individual loss, evidence, liability issues and the terms of the agreement can affect the outcome.

A settlement may include a process for assessing individual claims, submitting evidence, resolving disputed valuations and distributing agreed sums. Claimants should understand whether accepting an offer ends their claim, how deductions are calculated and whether the agreement deals with costs separately.

What should a potential claimant check?

• Whether the proposed case is formally subject to a GLO or is being coordinated through another procedure.
• Which common issues have been defined and whether the person’s circumstances fit them.
• Whether the claim has been entered on the group register, and whether any deadline or permission requirement applies.
• Which parts of the case remain individual, including loss, causation or limitation questions.
• How legal fees, insurance premiums, funding costs and common costs may affect any recovery.
• What evidence should be preserved, such as contracts, receipts, correspondence, medical records or photographs.
• Whether joining the group affects the ability to bring separate proceedings or accept another resolution.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to join a group litigation claim?

Not necessarily. A person may have an individual claim, but the available choices and consequences depend on the procedure, limitation rules, court orders and any agreement with legal representatives.

Does a GLO prove that the claims are valid?

No. A GLO manages claims that raise common or related issues. It does not decide liability at the moment it is made.

Will every claimant receive the same result?

No. Common issues may be decided together, while individual questions such as loss, causation and personal circumstances may produce different outcomes.

Can a claim be removed from the group register?

Yes. A party may apply to the management court for removal, and the court may give directions about how that claim should proceed afterwards.

Can new claimants join later?

Possibly, but the GLO may set a cut-off date or require the court’s permission for a later entry. The order and subsequent directions control the position.

Does this article apply across the whole UK?

The procedure described here is based on the civil rules of England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different court systems and procedural rules, so local advice is needed for claims brought there.

The practical meaning of group litigation

Group litigation works by separating the questions that can sensibly be decided together from those that require an individual assessment. The court’s register, defined common issues, test claims and costs directions provide the structure; the facts of each claimant’s case still matter.

For anyone considering participation, the most useful first step is not simply asking whether a case is “group” litigation. It is asking which procedure is being used, what the court has ordered, which issues are genuinely common, and what responsibilities remain with each claimant.

This article is general information about procedure in England and Wales, not legal advice. The rules, court orders and limitation periods applying to a particular claim should be checked with a qualified legal adviser.

A large legal claim can take years to resolve. Every month it stays open, it consumes money: court and filing fees, disclosure and document review, expert reports, counsel’s time, and the operating costs of the business or household behind the claim. When the sums in dispute are significant and the timetable is long, the gap between when costs are paid and when any recovery arrives can matter as much as the legal merits. Third-party litigation funding exists to bridge that gap.

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF), also called litigation finance, is an arrangement in which a party that is neither the claimant nor the lawyer provides capital to support a legal claim in exchange for a share of any eventual recovery. It appears in group actions, commercial disputes, insolvency claims, and international arbitration. This article explains how the model works, what it covers, how it is regulated in different jurisdictions, and where its limits lie.

What counts as a large-scale legal claim

Size is not only about the headline figure. A claim is generally described as large-scale when at least one of three conditions applies: the cost of running it is high relative to the resources of the party bringing it; the timeline is measured in years rather than months; or many claimants share a common grievance and must be organised into a single proceeding.

Antitrust litigation illustrates the first two. An analysis published by the law firm Foley & Lardner cites a study of 5,020 such cases filed in U.S. federal courts: the median time from filing to trial-level resolution was 1.8 years, the slowest 25% of cases averaged 4.9 years, and the slowest 10% averaged about eight years. In the two busiest venues, median times were 2.5 and three years. Those timelines shape everything that follows. The longer a case runs, the more capital it consumes before any recovery is realised.

Group and collective actions illustrate the third condition. Where widespread harm produces relatively modest individual losses, the cost of pursuing a single claim may exceed its value. Aggregation can make the dispute economically viable, and funding can support the costs of organising and running it.

How a litigation funding arrangement works

Most commercial funding is non-recourse. If the claim fails, the funder generally receives nothing, and the claimant is typically not required to repay the money advanced. If the claim succeeds, the funder receives an agreed return from the recovery. Because repayment is tied to the outcome, the arrangement is often treated as a form of investment or asset purchase rather than a loan, and it is usually not reported to credit bureaus.

Capital is commonly deployed on a drawdown basis, meaning funds are released as costs arise rather than as a single upfront lump sum. A litigation funding agreement (LFA) sets out what is covered, reporting obligations, the funder’s return, and what happens around settlement and termination.

Funders generally do not take control of the case. Day-to-day conduct typically remains with the claimant and their lawyers, while the agreement sets consultation and reporting expectations. In England and Wales, the voluntary Code of Conduct published by the Association of Litigation Funders includes assurances that a member will not seek to control the litigation or terminate funding without a material adverse development. The position may differ in other jurisdictions.

Returns are negotiated case by case. Practitioner guidance describes three broad structures, and actual terms depend on the case, jurisdiction, and agreement rather than any standard rate.

Why funders are used in group and collective actions

Collective redress has expanded in several jurisdictions, and funding has become a common feature of it. In the EU, the Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828 requires member states to provide for representative actions to protect consumers’ collective interests, and Article 10 addresses their funding. The European Commission’s mapping of third-party litigation funding across the EU found that most member states have no TPLF-specific regulation beyond the directive’s implementation, and noted that funding has a long tradition in jurisdictions such as Germany and the Netherlands.

In England and Wales, the Civil Justice Council’s Final Report on Litigation Funding (June 2025) recorded 27 funded collective proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal as at March 2024, alongside further funded representative and group actions in the High Court. The same report traced the growth of UK funder assets from £198 million in 2011/12 to £2.2 billion a decade later, and described the UK market as one of the most developed in the world.

Funders typically assess three questions before committing: whether the claim is legally sound, what it is worth, and whether the defendant can pay. The last of these – enforceability – is often as important as the merits. A well-reasoned claim against a party with no assets or insurance may be difficult to fund, because a favourable judgment is only as useful as the ability to collect on it.

How funding changes case strategy

Costs in large claims are front-loaded. Disclosure, expert evidence, and procedural applications fall due early, while recovery may not arrive for years. Funding can cover not only legal fees but also disbursements such as court fees, expert reports, and document review, and in some jurisdictions it can help meet security for costs or adverse costs orders.

That has a second effect, on negotiation. A claimant able to meet costs as they arise is under less pressure to accept a discounted early settlement. Funders also spread risk across a portfolio of claims, which can allow them to support individual cases that would be difficult to finance on a standalone basis. Portfolio transactions have become a significant part of the market: Westfleet Advisors’ 2025 Litigation Finance Market Report, summarised by Risk & Insurance, recorded a rebound in new U.S. commitments of about 23% year on year in 2025, with portfolio deals accounting for 64% of new commitments and an average transaction size of roughly $8.1 million.

From an insurer’s perspective, understanding the economics behind a claim has become part of assessing exposure. Industry analysis notes that funding now often supports the wider infrastructure of a claim – claim identification, expert evidence, data management, and the operational requirements of claimant firms – and that who is financing a claim, and how, is increasingly relevant to how long it continues and when settlement becomes commercially attractive.

The market in numbers

Estimates of the size of the litigation funding market vary by methodology and should be read with care. One market report placed the global litigation funding investment market at about US$20.6 billion in 2025, projecting roughly US$51 billion by 2036, while another estimated US$22.8 billion in 2025 and about US$41 billion by 2030. What the estimates share is a direction of travel: sustained growth, supported by institutional capital and a broader range of users.

Developments in how these arrangements are structured and documented are tracked across the specialist legal press; related industry coverage offers further context on how these models continue to develop in practice.

How litigation funding is regulated

The legal framework differs by jurisdiction, and the rules that apply to a specific claim depend on where it is brought.

In England and Wales, funding has been permitted since 1967, and a 2005 Court of Appeal decision confirmed it as a legitimate way to finance litigation. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court held in R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal that certain funding agreements were a form of damages-based agreement and therefore unenforceable under section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The Civil Justice Council’s 2025 report recommended legislation to reverse that effect and to introduce a “light-touch” statutory scheme. In December 2025 the government announced it would bring forward legislation to clarify that LFAs are not damages-based agreements, though no timeframe has been set.

In the United States, the picture is more fragmented. Courts have generally protected funding agreements from discovery where confidentiality measures are in place, while some courts have required disclosure where there is a specific, articulated risk of bias or conflict. As of April 2025, six states had enacted funding-disclosure requirements and roughly twenty others were considering similar measures, according to analysis of state legislative activity. Several federal district courts, including the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California, have adopted local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure, and a federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules subcommittee began examining the issue in late 2024.

Where the debate focuses

There is no consensus on how far funding should be regulated. The European Commission’s mapping exercise found that 58% of surveyed stakeholders saw a need for regulation at EU or national level, but views differed sharply by group: majorities of judiciary, business, and academic respondents favoured regulation, while consumer organisations and funders largely did not, and a majority of public authorities answered “don’t know.”

In England and Wales, the Civil Justice Council recommended a regulatory scheme covering capital adequacy, conflicts of interest, anti-money laundering, and disclosure of the fact of funding, while expressly rejecting caps on funders’ returns. Much of the current discussion concerns mechanics – how arrangements are structured, disclosed, and reviewed – rather than whether funding should exist. A 2022–2023 review by the Delaware Supreme Court’s Committee on Litigation Funding and Transparency, cited in submissions to the federal Advisory Committee, concluded that there was no evidence of systemic problems in the state courts, while recommending a narrow tool to address whether anyone other than the litigant controls a case.

Limits of the model

Funding does not make a weak claim viable, and it does not guarantee an outcome. It also does not replace legal advice. The cost of capital is real: a claimant weighs the share of any recovery that goes to the funder against the alternative of not bringing the claim at all. Because terms depend on the case, the jurisdiction, and the agreement, there is no single standard rate or structure.

Eligibility is also selective. Most commercial funders expect the claimant to have legal representation and focus on claims with a clear legal basis, meaningful damages, and a defendant able to pay. Some fund smaller matters through portfolio structures; others concentrate on particular categories of dispute.

Frequently asked questions

Is litigation funding a loan?

Generally not. In a typical non-recourse arrangement, the funder is repaid only if the claim succeeds, which is why the structure is usually treated as an investment or asset purchase rather than a loan. Some consumer products and some jurisdictions use different labels and apply different rules.

Who controls the case when it is funded?

In most funded structures the claimant and their lawyers retain day-to-day control. The agreement typically sets reporting and consultation expectations, particularly around settlement. In England and Wales, the voluntary Code of Conduct includes assurances against funder control; arrangements elsewhere can differ.

Does funding guarantee that a claim will succeed or be accepted?

No. Funders screen cases closely and decline many of them. A funding decision reflects an assessment of merits, damages, and enforceability, but it does not determine the legal outcome, which only a court or tribunal can do.

How much of a recovery does a funder typically receive?

Returns are negotiated case by case and are commonly structured as a multiple of the capital deployed, a percentage of the recovery, or a hybrid of the two. There is no universal rate, and terms vary with risk, duration, and expected recovery.

Can individuals use litigation funding?

In some contexts, yes. Consumer products exist, particularly in personal injury and pre-settlement advances, though they are often structured differently from commercial funding. Many commercial funders focus on higher-value claims or portfolios.

Is litigation funding legal?

It is permitted in many jurisdictions, but the rules and degree of regulation vary. Some jurisdictions regulate it specifically; others rely on general contract law, codes of conduct, or court oversight. Whether a particular arrangement is enforceable depends on the applicable law and how the agreement is structured.

Litigation funding does not decide the merits of a dispute, and it does not guarantee any outcome. What it can do is resource a claim with genuine legal merit long enough to reach a decision. For claimants and their advisers, the practical starting point is a candid assessment of three things – legal strength, damages, and enforceability – the same questions a funder applies during due diligence. Where those conditions are met, funding can bring a claim that is economically out of reach within reach. Where they are not, the difficulty in attracting capital is itself a signal about how the claim’s practical prospects are likely to be viewed.