High Court Orders Disclosure of Litigation Funding Arrangements

The High Court has recently considered the circumstances in which a party may be required to reveal its litigation funding arrangements. In QPQ Limited v Schute, ¹ the Court ordered disclosure amid allegations that the plaintiff’s proceedings had been unlawfully supported by third-party funders.

Maintenance and Champerty

Maintenance is the improper provision of support to litigation in which the supporter has no direct or legitimate interest. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance and occurs when a person maintaining another’s litigation stipulates for a share of the proceedings of the action or suit. ² Maintenance and champerty are crimes and torts in Ireland. As a result, third-party litigation funding is prohibited in Ireland, save in limited circumstances.

Against that backdrop, the question arose in this case as to whether the plaintiff should be compelled to disclose its litigation funding arrangements, where it was alleged that proceedings were being financed in a manner contrary to Irish law

Application for Disclosure

The proceedings concerned an intellectual property dispute. In course of making discovery, the plaintiff disclosed certain WhatsApp messages. The defendant asserted that these suggested that a third party had already provided some funding for the Irish litigation and that additional funding might become available in the future. He asked the High Court to order the plaintiff to disclose its litigation funding arrangements, saying that he had a right to know his true adversary. In reply, the plaintiff argued that the High Court did not have a general power to order such disclosure.

Decision of the Court

Twomey J disagreed on this point and held that the High Court did have a general power to make the disclosure order, irrespective of how the existence of the funding arrangement came to the attention of the court.

He said that Kirwan v Connors ³ established that the court had an inherent jurisdiction to make any order designed to ensure that the administration of justice operated in an efficient and effective manner and to protect it from abuse. If unlawful funding existed, it must be seen as an abuse of court process, which should be prevented or discouraged, by means of a court order seeking disclosure of same. 

He added that since third party litigation funding was likely to have a negative effect on court lists making them less efficient and less effective for litigants, it must follow that the court had the power to require a party to disclose alleged unlawful third-party funding.

Citing Thema, ⁴ Twomey J went on to say that if funding for litigation came from a party who already had an interest in the litigation (i.e. a shareholder or creditor of the plaintiff) then it would not be necessary or proportionate to make a disclosure order regarding that funding, in order for the defendant to know its true adversary. However, the reverse was also true.

Twomey J was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to justify the making of the disclosure order in this case. He rejected arguments that the order should be refused on the grounds of delay or a failure to seek security for costs. He directed that disclosure be made to both the defendant and the court.

Comment

The decision provides useful guidance regarding the circumstances in which parties may seek disclosure of litigation funding arrangements. At the same time, it serves as a reminder that, notwithstanding ongoing debate regarding litigation funding reform, the restrictions discussed in Persona ⁵ continue to apply. Indeed, Twomey J expressed the view that “there would not seem to be a pressing need for the removal of the current prohibition on third-party funding of litigation in Ireland”.

The judgment is likely to be of particular interest to non-Irish parties involved in commercial disputes, where questions may arise regarding the source of litigation funding.

See also our recent related briefing on litigation funding here

For more information on these updates, please contact Ian Lavelle, Heather Mahon or your usual contact within our Litigation and Regulation department.

¹ QPQ Limited v Schute [2026] IEHC 463

² Greenclean Waste Management Ltd v Leahy (No. 2) [2014] IEHC 314.

³ Kirwan v Connors [2025] IESC 21.

⁴ Thema International Fund plc v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited [2011] IEHC 357.

⁵ Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v The Minister for Public Enterprise Ireland [2017] IESC 27.