While the availability of, and access to, litigation funding has been a boon for those seeking access to justice, some industry insiders argue that reforms have not gone far enough, and that more change is needed. One area of interest is recoverability for plaintiff costs, where currently claimants still stand to lose financially in order to cover the costs of the very funding that has allowed them to access justice.

Writing for The Law Society Gazette, managing director of LionFish, Tets Ishikawa, argues that where defendants have been proven to have harmed plaintiffs, it is right and just that they recoup the costs for an action caused by the defendant’s wrongdoing. He argues this is doubly true in cases where the defendant prolongs proceedings through inaction or failure to properly handle proceedings, thereby causing claimant’s costs to rise; as is true in the case of Cabo Concepts Ltd v MGA Entertainment.

Ishikawa also acknowledges that reform should not mean recoverability would be available in all commercial litigation matters, but that it should still be at the liberty of the court to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis. He points out that the basis behind non-recoverability is now outdated, and fundamentally misaligned with the principles of widening the avenues to legal redress that litigation funding is supposed to provide.