The Court of Appeal has given judgment in the Stone Rolls case. This was a claim for some £90 million against the auditors of a company in liquidation. The claimant liquidator was at least partly financing legal fees through third party funding. Much attention was given to the case when it first entered the media spotlight. The judgment of the Court of Appeal has dismissed the liquidator's claim but not because of anything related to the funding of the case (the judgment deals with important issues of law and public policy) and it remains to be seen whether there will be an appeal to the House of Lords.

The important point here is that plainly this was not an easy case and the Court was not looking at how it was funded; yet funders saw it as a sufficiently attractive proposition. Hence the view sometimes expressed that funders only back "sure fire winners" (often a fatal phrase in litigation) is evidently a misconception as to what sort of case is capable of being funded.   By no means is this a setback for the emerging market, much of which does not attract the public eye. If anything, and subject to due process, it is quite possible that the result, though financially unfortunate for the funders in respect of this one case alone, will reveal the strength and advantages of third party funding.