Litigation Nation: The growth of a class action claims culture
Danna Brown, August 2026
In Litigation Nation, Danna Brown examines the current state of the UK class action and third-party litigation funding market, the industry’s rapid growth, and the critical gaps that forthcoming legislation must address.
In Britain, a class action or a ‘collective proceeding’ is a claim brought by a large group of claimants who have suffered the same or similar harm from the same defendant, enabling them to seek compensation collectively. In third-party litigation funding, an external commercial investor pays the claimant’s legal costs and takes a share of any damages or settlement if the claim succeeds.
The Civil Justice Council’s 2025 review of the litigation funding market produced 58 recommendations for reform, yet the Starmer government committed to accepting only two. The report argues that this approach leaves the industry and system vulnerable. The report outlines the following changes that should be made to third-party litigation funding: a disclosure obligation to trace ultimate capital ownership to natural persons; sanctions screening conducted as a procedural prerequisite; and robust checks to ensure that a funder is financially fit to bear the risk it assumes when financing a claim.
Litigation Nation concludes that implementing these safeguards would give the market the institutional legitimacy on which the rule of law depends.
Note
This report is published by Civitas as a contribution to public debate on legal culture, third-party litigation funding, collective proceedings and regulatory reform in England and Wales.
The case studies, market participants and proceedings referenced in this report are cited solely for the purpose of structural and analytical illustration. No company, law firm, litigation funder, claims management company or individual named in this report is accused or suspected of any wrongdoing, breach of law, regulatory rule or professional standard. All entities discussed are understood to conduct their activities lawfully and in accordance with current regulations.
The report’s analysis addresses structural gaps in the existing regulatory framework, specifically the absence of mandatory beneficial ownership disclosure and proactive sanctions screening. Identifying those gaps does not constitute, and should not be read as, an allegation of misconduct against any specific party. All references to cases, transactions and market participants are drawn from publicly available sources, including court judgments, regulatory publications and established journalism. No confidential information has been relied upon. This report does not constitute legal advice.
Download PDF