When David faces Goliath in the courtroom, money often determines the outcome before evidence is even presented. Well-funded defendants can deploy vast legal teams, drag out proceedings, and exhaust claimants' resources—tactics designed not to win on merit but to simply outlast the other side. Third-party litigation funding is changing this dynamic, enabling individuals and small businesses to pursue valid claims against powerful opponents without the financial leverage historically required to compete.

The Problem: Asymmetric Warfare in Litigation

Large corporations and institutional defendants possess formidable advantages in legal disputes. They maintain in-house legal departments, have ongoing relationships with elite law firms, and can afford to treat litigation as a routine cost of doing business. More importantly, they can engage in strategic delay: filing motions, demanding extensive disclosure, appealing procedural decisions, and stretching cases across multiple years—all while the claimant's legal bills mount and financial pressure builds.

For individuals, small and medium enterprises, or cash-constrained organisations, this creates an impossible dilemma. Even with a strong case, the prospect of funding years of litigation from operational cashflow or personal savings is daunting. Faced with escalating costs and no guarantee of recovery, many meritorious claims are abandoned or settled for a fraction of their value simply because the claimant cannot afford to continue.

Third-party funding breaks this cycle by shifting the financial burden away from the claimant and onto a professional funder who evaluates the case on its merits and assumes the downside risk.

How Funding Changes the Balance of Power

With third-party funding in place, claimants gain several critical advantages:

- Financial endurance: Funded claimants no longer face the pressure of mounting legal bills. The funder covers the cost of top-tier legal representation, expert witnesses, and all procedural expenses, removing the defendant's ability to win through attrition.

- Strategic parity: Claimants can now afford the same quality of legal counsel, forensic accountants, industry experts, and litigation support that defendants routinely deploy. This levels the evidentiary playing field and ensures that cases are decided on substance rather than resources.

- Credibility in settlement negotiations: Defendants know that funded claimants have the backing to see the case through to trial. This fundamentally changes settlement dynamics— offers can no longer be lowballed in the expectation that the claimant will capitulate due to financial exhaustion.

- Non-recourse protection: Because funding is typically non-recourse, claimants are insulated from the financial consequences of an adverse outcome. This removes the existential risk that often forces claimants to accept unfavourable settlements.

Real-World Impact: Cases That Would Not Have Proceeded

The impact of litigation funding is most visible in cases that simply would not have been viable without it. Consider a small technology firm alleging patent infringement by a multinational corporation, or an individual whistleblower pursuing a fraud claim against their former employer. In both scenarios, the defendant has vastly deeper pockets and can afford to litigate indefinitely. Without funding, these claims—however meritorious—would likely never reach court.

Funding also enables collective actions and group litigation, where multiple claimants with relatively modest individual claims can pool resources to challenge systemic wrongdoing. Whether it's consumers misled by false advertising, investors harmed by corporate misconduct, or employees subjected to unlawful practices, funding makes it economically feasible to pursue accountability at scale.

The Deterrent Effect: Encouraging Corporate Responsibility

Beyond individual cases, litigation funding also serves a broader deterrent function. When corporations know that claimants have access to professional funding, the calculus changes. Wrongdoing is less likely to go unpunished, and the cost-benefit analysis of risky or unlawful conduct shifts. Defendants can no longer rely on their financial muscle to escape accountability, which in turn encourages better governance, compliance, and ethical behaviour.

This systemic effect benefits society as a whole, ensuring that legal rights are enforceable in practice, not just in theory, and that access to justice is not restricted to those with the deepest pockets.

The Path Forward: Making Funding Accessible

Third-party litigation funding is not a magic solution to every legal challenge, and not all claims will attract funding. Funders assess cases rigorously, looking for strong merits, realistic damages, and enforceable judgments. However, for claimants with solid cases who lack the resources to pursue them, funding can be transformative.

If you're facing a well-resourced opponent and unsure whether you can afford to litigate, exploring third-party funding may be the key to turning the tables. By levelling the financial playing field, funding ensures that justice is determined by the strength of the evidence and the law—not by the size of the opposing party's war chest.