What English commercial court data reveals about financing litigation

Burford Capital analyses Solomonic data on outcomes in the English Commercial Court and offers a perspective on their implications for clients. By examining decisions over the past seven years, the team identified 400 claims that were either won or partially won, compared to 279 that were lost. Many of these claims will have been backed by litigation funders, offering a valuable window into the practical realities of funded litigation, shedding light on success rates, risk assessment and the broader strategic considerations that law firms and businesses must navigate.

Legal finance supports meritorious claims—but risk remains

The numbers speak to a commonly misunderstood point: A majority of cases brought in the English Commercial Court—59%—are successful. This statistic helps to dispel a persistent myth: That the availability of legal finance encourages the pursuit of weak or frivolous claims. In reality, funders have a strong incentive to back only meritorious cases with a high likelihood of success.

However, the data also makes clear that litigation remains inherently risky. The remaining 41% of cases are ultimately unsuccessful, and even among those classified as wins, outcomes can fall short, and victories can be pyrrhic—particularly in cases where success turns on a single pivotal issue or where damages awarded are significantly lower than anticipated.

Because legal finance is typically provided on a non-recourse basis, funders absorb the risk of loss if a claim fails. That reality underscores why rigorous diligence is central to the funding process. Indeed, as Burford reported in its 2024 annual report recently, of its investments that have gone to trial, 70% have won. Success depends not only on careful case selection at the outset but also on ongoing monitoring throughout the life of a claim. A passive or “no questions asked” approach to funding is unsustainable. Legal finance providers must remain actively engaged, ensuring that the cases they support continue to meet commercial and legal expectations as they progress.

Duration risk is real—but manageable

Another key takeaway: The average length of an English Commercial Court claim was under 18 months. While this figure is influenced by cases that settle early or are withdrawn before judgment, it nonetheless offers an insight into the practical timelines of litigation and dispels another myth: That litigating in the English courts is slow.

This has important implications for legal finance. Case duration has a direct impact on the economics of funding—affecting everything from capital allocation to return expectations. As such, sophisticated pricing models that factor in expected timelines are essential. Relying solely on blunt pricing tools like fixed return multiples can lead to misalignment between legal finance providers and clients, particularly in cases that resolve quickly. More nuanced, duration-sensitive pricing structures allow for fairer, more efficient funding arrangements that better reflect the realities of modern litigation.

Judgments are coming quickly—impacting settlement windows

One of the more surprising insights from the data is the speed with which judgments are issued following trial: On average, just 25 days elapse between the final hearing and the delivery of judgment. This relatively short window leaves limited time for post-trial settlement discussions, emphasizing the importance of considering settlement opportunities well before a case reaches the courtroom.

For claimants and their counsel, this underscores the need to reassess the risk-adjusted value of the claim at every stage of the litigation lifecycle—not just in the early phases or “on the courtroom steps” before trial. As evidence is disclosed, arguments are refined and judicial leanings become more apparent, the potential outcomes and value of a claim can shift meaningfully. Maintaining a flexible and realistic settlement strategy is therefore critical—not only to manage risk, but to ensure the most commercially sensible outcome is achieved.

The bottom line?

Legal finance can be a powerful enabler for meritorious claims, offering claimants access to the resources needed to pursue complex, high-stakes litigation without bearing the financial burden upfront. It helps level the playing field, allowing businesses to enforce their rights and recover value that might otherwise go unrealized due to cost constraints or risk aversion.

However, the effective use of legal finance demands more than just capital. It requires discipline, strategic selectivity and a clear-eyed understanding of the inherent risks of litigation. Not every claim is a suitable candidate for funding—and even strong cases must be evaluated with rigor, taking into account legal merits, enforceability, counterparty strength, jurisdictional factors and the likelihood of recovery.

Ultimately, legal finance succeeds not by eliminating litigation risk, but by managing it intelligently, ensuring that only the strongest claims receive support and that funding structures are aligned with realistic expectations and outcomes.