Funding Agreement South Africa

With this verdict, it was a question of entering the South African market of commercial financiers – equity funds, investment companies, commercial banks, etc. And in recent years, litigation financing in South Africa has even increased as foreign investors, who have long been a feature of the dispute resolution landscape in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and elsewhere, are looking for returns that are not comparable to traditional markets. In addition, clean financing initiatives are launched, with South Africa`s first process finance company taking office in 2013. [2] In THE cases of EP Property Projects (Pty) Ltd/Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town and Another, and four related motions[4], the Tribunal exercised its freedom of judgment to make a decision on costs against a trial promoter who had already joined the proceedings. The Tribunal challenged the position under English law and other common law jurisdictions and found that cost orders are generally not granted against “simple funders”, i.e. funders who do not seek to control or profit from the conduct of the litigation and therefore have no personal interest in doing so. But where the funder controls or will benefit for the most part, if it succeeds – both factors are in the financing of commercial disputes, which is a form of investment – then the funder does not facilitate access to justice as much as having access to it for its own purposes, and becomes the “real” part of the litigation in everything except its name. It is then only presumed that he will be held responsible for any harmful costs incurred by his business. Our funding is at risk and depends on the success of the deal. If the case does not succeed, the applicant is not required to repay the financing of Taurus Capital. The South African position before 2004 was that an agreement on the financing of disputes was legal, provided that it was concluded in good faith and that it was not contrary to public policy.

It is contrary to public policy if it is a “speculative purpose” or if it is closed for a “bad purpose”. The apparent ambiguity of these concepts would have provided few useful guidelines for all those considering a dispute settlement agreement; But the general attitude of South Africans towards the agreements before 2004 can be inferred from the fact that, in most areas, such agreements were considered to be contrary to public order and therefore unenforceable. In PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v. IMF (Australia) Ltd and Another[3], in a funded proceeding, the NGHC granted the defendant, in a funded proceeding, a de-grenation of the defendant in the form of an order that joins the winning bidder as a civil party, so that the defendant could directly seek a contract of costs against the lender.