Limiting Litigation Funding: A Lesson Unlearned from the Post Office Scandal

Litigation funding played a crucial role in delivering justice to the Post Office victims. However, this vital system is now under threat.

The widely-watched “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” drama and the ongoing Post Office Horizon inquiry have thrust the unjust treatment of sub-postmasters back into the public eye. Witnessing the Post Office’s abominable behaviour, from rewarding the security team for successful prosecutions to the tragic reminder that some victims passed away without receiving their deserved compensation, has been deeply distressing. Nevertheless, it has spurred the government to expedite the process of ensuring justice for those affected.

Ironically, the very mechanism that enabled these individuals to pursue legal action against the Post Office is now at risk of being unavailable to other wronged groups in the future. As Alan Bates recently highlighted, it was litigation funding that empowered him and fellow sub-postmasters to challenge the Post Office in the High Court and secure a favourable settlement.

This precarious situation arises from a little-known Supreme Court ruling from last summer: the PACCAR decision. The court allowed a cartel of price-fixing truck manufacturers, previously found guilty of overcharging thousands of hauliers, to challenge a compensation claim based on a technicality in their funding arrangements. Though obscure, this ruling threatens to have severe and widespread implications for access to litigation funding. Ongoing cases where consumers confront large corporations are now in jeopardy, and there are concerns that cases settled before the ruling could be deemed unenforceable.

It is difficult to imagine the frustration the sub-postmasters endured when the Post Office’s legal team either withheld crucial evidence from the independent investigation or strategically placed obstacles in their path to justice. This cruel tactic is, unfortunately, common in cases where large organisations, whether private or public, seek to intimidate individuals and small businesses into submission.

Justice Secretary Alex Chalk understands the gravity of this issue. It was to read about his commitment to addressing it at the earliest legislative opportunity. The Horizon Bill presents an ideal chance to overturn the PACCAR judgement and ensure full access to litigation funding.

Even with litigation funding, the odds were heavily stacked against the sub-postmasters. This government has shown its dedication to rectifying historical injustices—but this commitment must extend to ensuring that future claimants like Mr. Bates can obtain justice before parliamentary time runs out.