The past two years have reshaped key corners of UK law that matter to family offices: how litigation is funded and paid out (PACCAR and the post-PACCAR appellate line), the limits of executive power (Rwanda and citizenship deprivation), reputation litigation against major publishers (Prince Harry v MGN and NGN), truth and authenticity in technology disputes (COPA v Wright), the platform economy’s workforce boundaries (Deliveroo/IWGB), private property rights versus intrusive design (Fearn v Tate), and institutional accountability at scale (Post Office Horizon). The through-line isn’t just doctrine, it’s governance. Across these cases, the winners were those with documentary discipline, sound funding and risk architecture, and a credible communications plan. Convert these lessons into board habits: stress-test funding terms, audit evidence early, ring-fence reputation strategy, and plan for policy whiplash when Parliament legislates around court outcomes.
1) Why these cases matter for family offices
Family offices increasingly back litigation (directly or via funds), own or influence media-sensitive brands, employ at scale through portfolio companies, and develop or acquire real estate. Recent headline cases shift the risk surface in each of these arenas. PACCAR generated enforceability risk for percentage-based funder returns; subsequent Court of Appeal rulings have steadied the market with multiple-based LFAs and confirmed “waterfall” priority in collective actions. Rwanda and Begum show how quickly the policy/legal perimeter can move – courts restrict, Parliament rewrites, and the result affects workforce, immigration, and stakeholder relations. Media privacy rulings illustrate how disclosure burdens and “narrative risk” play out. COPA v Wright showcases courts’ willingness to interrogate tech authenticity and punish abusive litigation conduct. Fearn v Tate reframes nuisance risk for high-profile developments. And the Horizon Act demonstrates how systemic governance failures can trigger unprecedented legislative remedies. For principals and CIOs, the message is practical: fund smart, document early, and plan for regulatory and reputational volatility.
2) The funding landscape after PACCAR: enforceability, economics, and strategy
Executive snapshot
The Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling (July 2023) treated percentage-of-damages litigation funding agreements as damages-based agreements (DBAs), rendering many non-compliant LFAs unenforceable. Markets pivoted to multiple-of-outlay pricing. In 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed that multiples-based LFAs are not DBAs and upheld the CAT’s power to prioritise funders/lawyers in a distribution waterfall. Policy remains in motion: a government bill to reverse PACCAR stalled at the 2024 election, and the Civil Justice Council has urged swift legislation with “light-touch” regulation. Translation for family offices: term sheets matter; waterfalls are viable in principle; structure choices carry real enforcement risk until Parliament acts.
What PACCAR actually held. On 26 July 2023 the Supreme Court decided that LFAs granting funders a percentage of damages are DBAs under s.58AA Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the DBA Regulations 2013, upending many competition and commercial claims. Immediate impacts included re-papering funding, pauses in CAT certification and challenges to enforceability.
Policy responses. Government introduced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in March 2024 to reverse PACCAR, but dissolution stalled its passage. In June 2025 the Civil Justice Council recommended urgent legislation to undo PACCAR and to introduce proportionate regulation (transparency, court oversight), notably rejecting hard caps on funder returns.
Post-PACCAR toolkit: multiples and waterfalls. In Sony v Alex Neill [2025] EWCA Civ 841, the Court of Appeal held that multiples-based LFAs (even with a cap linked to recoveries) are not DBAs. Separately, in Gutmann v Apple [2025] EWCA Civ 459, the Court confirmed the CAT’s power to order that funder and legal fees are paid before class distributions, subject to the tribunal’s fairness control at settlement/damages distribution. For funders and co-funding family offices, both rulings stabilise economics and reduce tail risk from low take-up or protracted distributions.
Practice on settlement approval. The CAT approved approximately a £200m settlement in Merricks v Mastercard in early/mid-2025, demonstrating active scrutiny over the split between class and funder and highlighting that “headline claim value” is no guarantee of distributions to consumers or funders. Expect close analysis of fairness and proportionality in future settlements.
Implications for defendants. While the window to knock out funding on PACCAR grounds is narrowing, defendants can still probe control clauses, termination, capital adequacy, and ATE coverage -and press the CAT on the fairness of any waterfall at the approval stage.
Term-sheet stress tests for co-funders and principals.
● Priority & waterfall. Draft a clear waterfall, assume CAT oversight, and evidence consumer fairness.
● Pricing basis. Use multiples of deployed/committed capital, with severance to avoid DBA re-characterisation.
● Adverse costs & ATE. Lock in cover across appeals and require notice of any lapses.
● Control & governance. Avoid funder control of litigation or settlement; assume future statute may codify limits.
● Portability. Permit novation to replacement funders if policy or economics change.
● Disclosure readiness. Prepare for routine disclosure of funding terms in collective actions and for judicial scrutiny of distribution fairness.
Bottom line. UK funding is bankable again with multiples-based LFAs and well-drafted waterfalls. Until Parliament reverses PACCAR, percentage-based returns remain high-risk. Build court scrutiny into your economics from day one.
3) State power and rule of law: asylum, citizenship, and national security
Rwanda removals (AAA). In R (AAA) v SSHD the Supreme Court held in November 2023 that the Rwanda policy was unlawful on the record then available, citing a real risk of refoulement and insufficient systems to protect asylum seekers. Parliament subsequently enacted the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, legislating that Rwanda is to be treated as a safe country for UK purposes, illustrating how judicial checks can be followed by legislative override. Expect ongoing litigation and political scrutiny.
Citizenship deprivation (Begum). In Begum v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 152, the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Begum’s appeal against SIAC’s dismissal, emphasising the deferential standard in national security assessments and the limited appellate role where SIAC is satisfied on the evidence. For investors and boards, the lesson is that where the executive assembles a credible national security evidential base, it is hard to dislodge.
Action points. Treat policy whiplash (court ruling → fast-track statute) as an investable risk; bake in board triggers to re-visit assumptions when major bills are introduced or appeals listed. For operations intersecting with immigration and security perimeters, focus on process quality and documentation as this is what courts interrogate.
4) Reputation, privacy, and the media: litigation that rewrites your narrative
In The Duke of Sussex v MGN [2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch), the High Court found widespread unlawful information gathering by Mirror Group, awarding Prince Harry £140,600 and making broader findings on historic newsroom conduct. Separately, in January 2025 News Group Newspapers (publisher of The Sun) settled and issued a full apology for serious intrusions, paying substantial damages. For family offices backing public-facing brands or principals, this underscores three realities: (1) disclosure burdens are heavy and reputationally costly; (2) settlement optics can be as consequential as outcomes; and (3) robust record-keeping and proactive communications planning are as core to defence as legal submissions.
What to copy into your playbook. Maintain a discovery-ready archive (emails, device logs, third-party investigator instructions). Pre-agree media protocols and governance for high-risk allegations (early independent review; crisis comms scripts). Treat litigation strategy and reputation strategy as one plan.
5) Tech authenticity and IP integrity: the Bitcoin identity trial
In COPA v Wright [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), Mellor J held he was “entirely satisfied” Dr Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, finding forgery and dishonesty across a vast evidential record, with follow-on restraint and contempt orders. The court’s approach, which included deep technical scrutiny, rigorous expert evidence, and willingness to sanction abusive conduct, signals how English courts will handle authenticity disputes in technology and IP-adjacent claims. For R&D-heavy portfolio companies, expect exacting demands on provenance, metadata, and chain-of-custody for key documents and code.
Governance cue. Institute a document integrity regime (hashing, versioning, audit trails). If your thesis relies on authorship or first-to-invent narratives, invest early in independent forensic support and litigation holds.
6) Workforce models and the platform economy: limits of collective bargaining rights
In IWGB v CAC (Deliveroo) [2023] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court held that Deliveroo riders did not enjoy collective bargaining rights because their contracts included a genuine, unfettered right of substitution, so there was no “employment relationship” for Article 11 ECHR purposes (and no “worker” status under TULRCA). Contract architecture still matters. Even so, reputational and regulatory pressures on platform models persist; boards should measure the PR cost of “contractor” status against operational flexibility.
Board checklist. Keep substitution rights real and used, align onboarding with the contract reality, and model workforce-status risk into pricing and customer SLAs.
7) Property rights meet privacy: intrusive viewing as nuisance
In Fearn v Tate [2023] UKSC 4, the Supreme Court recognised that intrusive viewing can be a private nuisance, overturning the Court of Appeal and remitting remedy. Developers, museum operators, and high-profile occupiers should factor sightline risk and photography/overlooking into design and management plans. For family offices investing in placemaking or iconic properties, intrusive design can now translate into actionable tort risk.
Practical steps. Commission view-shed analysis in planning; design-in screening; adopt visitor conduct policies; and budget for neighbour engagement/mitigation.
8) Disclosure failures and institutional accountability: the Post Office Horizon arc
The Horizon litigation exposed catastrophic governance: the Bates v Post Office judgments found system defects and criticised evidence handling. In 2024, Parliament passed the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act, quashing convictions en masse for affected sub-postmasters to accelerate redress. For boards, this is a cautionary tale about expert independence, disclosure discipline, and how political pressure can drive extraordinary legislative remedies when institutional failures harm the public at scale.
Governance moves. Establish a standing disclosure protocol and independent audit routes for safety-critical systems; rehearse “worst-case” communications; and maintain transparent data on error rates and fixes for regulators, courts, and the public.
9) Boardroom governance under litigation pressure
● Single source of truth. Create a litigation dashboard capturing claim status, funding terms, exposure ranges, ATE cover, and comms posture.
● Privilege hygiene. Train execs on how to write (or not write) emails; run counsel-led investigations where appropriate.
● Funding governance. Approve LFAs at board level, record the fairness rationale, and pre-clear how waterfalls would be explained in public.
● Fan-out planning. In sensitive matters (media/privacy, national security adjacency), map stakeholders (regulators, NGOs, employee groups) and set contact roles early.
10) Practical playbook for family offices
● Litigation pre-mortem. For each material risk vector (privacy/media, employment status, consumer claims, public law), identify the worst plausible outcome and how the narrative would look on the front page.
● Post-PACCAR funding checklist. Prefer multiples to percentages; draft robust waterfalls; hard-wire ATE; avoid funder control; build severance provisions; prepare a fairness narrative for the CAT.
● Evidence first. Prioritise independent experts, reproducible methods, and version-controlled data rooms (vital in tech/authorship disputes and complex product claims).
● Policy volatility. Where a strategy relies on contested public policy, hard-code triggers to re-underwrite when a bill is announced or a Supreme Court hearing is listed.
● Reputation guardrails. Pair legal defences with comms SOPs; assume documents will surface; settle early when disclosure risk outweighs legal upside.
● Real estate and placemaking. Add intrusive viewing and neighbour privacy into planning consent risk registers.
11) Conclusion: from headlines to habits
The headlines are the symptoms; the habits decide outcomes. Across funding, public law, media privacy, tech authenticity, workforce status, nuisance, and institutional responsibility, the consistent edge is prepared governance: smart funding structures, disciplined documents, credible experts, and a joined-up legal–reputation strategy. Build these into your operating rhythm now and you won’t just track the next wave of cases, you’ll be positioned to withstand them.
