Therium’s hearing will be held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, later this year.

Source: Adobe Stock. (n.d.). Photo of The Royal Courts of Justice, London. The Law Courts, The Royal Courts ofJustice houses the High Court and Court of Appeal of England and Wales. https://stock.adobe.com/es/images/the-royal-courts-of-justice-london-the-law-courts-the-royal-courts-of-justice-houses-the-high-court-and-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales/87658912

Therium’s Role in Controversial Legal Battles

Therium is a litigation funding firm that provides financial backing for lawsuits in exchange for a share of any winnings. The company has been involved in several high-profile cases, including its controversial role in the Sulu Sultanate case, where it funded a legal claim against Malaysia over territorial disputes related to Sabah. That case drew global attention and criticism for the potential manipulation of legal systems to extract financial gains; moreover, it was specifically accused of “Wilful Negligence” in the “rogue arbitration.” Now, Therium finds itself at the center of another legal controversy—this time in the UK courts, accused of improper conduct in the “Emissions Litigation” case.

Background to the Case

The case, Your Lawyers Limited (YLL) v Capital Interchange Limited (CIL) & Therium, revolves around accusations that CIL and Therium wrongfully shared confidential information and conspired to gain an unfair advantage in a lawsuit. YLL claims that the two defendants violated a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)—a legal contract that requires parties to keep shared information private. The case is linked to the broader Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, in which law firms fought for control over representing groups of affected car owners.

What YLL Accuses Therium of Doing

YLL argues that Therium and CIL improperly used confidential details to undermine YLL’s legal position in the emissions case. Essentially, Therium is accused of taking part in a scheme that deprived YLL of potential business opportunities by misusing inside information. YLL believes this was done intentionally to help other legal teams gain an upper hand in the emissions case.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined several important legal principles to determine whether YLL’s claims should proceed:

1. Strike-Out Applications & Summary Judgment – CIL and Therium argued that YLL’s lawsuit should be dismissed outright because it lacked merit. However, the court rejected this and decided the claims were weighty enough to warrant a proper hearing.

2. Abuse of Process & Aldi Guidelines – The court looked at whether YLL should have raised these claims earlier, in a related lawsuit against another firm, Harcus Sinclair. Generally, courts discourage bringing multiple lawsuits over the same issue unless there’s a good reason. While Therium and CIL argued that YLL’s claims should have been part of the earlier case, the court disagreed and allowed the lawsuit to continue.

3. Issue Estoppel – This legal principle prevents someone from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided in court. Therium claimed that a previous ruling in the Harcus Sinclair case should block YLL’s new claims. However, the court ruled that since Therium wasn’t a party in the earlier lawsuit, this rule didn’t apply.

4. Collateral Attack on a Previous Decision – Courts don’t allow parties to reargue decisions that have already been settled in earlier cases. Therium and CIL argued that YLL’s lawsuit was an improper attempt to overturn the previous ruling. But the court found that the current case was different enough to proceed.

5. Unlawful Means Conspiracy – This is a grave accusation, where one party deliberately harms another using illegal methods. YLL claims Therium and CIL knowingly participated in a plan to misuse confidential information to damage YLL’s business. The court found that this claim was sufficiently substantiated and that the court should proceed with a hearing.

What Did the Court Decide?

The court dismissed the applications from Therium and CIL to throw out the case, meaning the allegations will now be examined in a full trial. While Therium later secured permission to appeal the court’s decision, with a hearing scheduled for late 2025, this does not change the fact that the lawsuit is moving forward. The allegations remain in place, and the case against Therium will continue to unfold.

What This Means for Therium

While Therium has not yet been found guilty of wrongdoing, this ruling is a significant setback. The court’s refusal to dismiss the case suggests that YLL’s claims are credible and deserve thorough examination. If proven, these allegations could damage Therium’s reputation further, reinforcing concerns about its role in litigation funding and the ethics of its business practices—concerns that were already raised in the Sulu Sultanate case.

As the trial moves forward, Therium could face major consequences if the court ultimately determines that it participated in an unlawful scheme to manipulate the emissions litigation. Given its past involvement in controversial cases, this lawsuit adds another layer to the growing scrutiny of Therium’s operations in the legal world.

REFERENCES

Case Law Digest. (2024, February 23). High Court Emphasizes Legal Principles in Your Lawyers Limited v Capital Interchange Limited Case. https://caselawdigest.com/summaries/high-court-chancery-division/your-lawyers-limited-v-capital-interchange-limited-anor/

Womack, J. (2024, June 6). Litigation Funder Therium Accused of ‘Wilful Negligence’ in ‘Rogue Arbitration’ Lawsuit. Law.com International. https://www.law.com/international-edition/2024/06/04/litigation-funder-therium-accused-of-wilful-negligence-in-rogue-arbitration-lawsuit/?slreturn=20250129113238