Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the financial stability of the litigation funding sector, and whether introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 will increase systemic financial risk and volatility within that sector.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.
As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.
The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential economic impact of introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, including the impact on business confidence and investment in the UK.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.
As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.
The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.
As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.
The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.
Asked by: Tom Hayes (Labour - Bournemouth East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the frequency of late delivery of prisoners to court by contractors Serco and GEOAmey.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.
Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).
During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.
Asked by: Tom Hayes (Labour - Bournemouth East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many fines of up to £625 for each 15-minute delay caused by the late delivery of a prisoner to court have been levied on contractors Serco and GEOAmey.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The performance of the criminal justice system as a whole against the requirement for timely delivery of prisoners to court is 98.31%. The latest available annual figure (1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025) for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contractors’ performance against the indicators on timely delivery is 99.92%. We keep the contractors’ performance under constant review.
Penalties, known as service credits, are incurred for delays attributable to failure on the part of the contractor. They are calculated from the point 15 minutes after court proceedings are ready to commence – provided it is within the agreed court start times. A service credit is incurred for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof (in which case the supplier is penalised for a full fifteen minutes).
During the 12 months from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025, out of 343,638 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, there were 273 instances of failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and (b) the potential impact of those lawsuits on public-interest advocacy and journalism.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will write to the hon. Member for Slough outlining (a) why the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court has been (i) writing to the hon. Member for Slough and (ii) sending him sealed court orders regarding a court case to which he is not a party, (b) why this has continued after correspondence from his office, (c) whether all parties for this case are aware of (A) this case and (B) the orders relating to it, (d) whether all parties for this case are aware that the hon. Member for Slough has been sent this information and (e) whether, if required, the Information Commissioner's Office will be informed.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.
HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.
HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.
Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.
This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what checks are undertaken to ensure Hon Members and other individuals are not sent court orders to which (a) they are not party and (b) have sensitive personal information of others.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.
HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.
HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.
Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.
This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 23 December 2025 to Question 100768, whether AI-generated transcripts will have the same evidential status as human-produced transcripts for the purposes of a) appeals and b) judicial review.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HMCTS recognises the significant potential for AI transcription to drive greater efficiency and opportunities for expanding open justice across the courts and tribunals. As such, HMCTS is piloting how automated transcription (using AI) could assist judges in preparing and writing decisions in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This work is one of 15 AI Exemplar projects across government.
In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale the provision of AI-generated transcripts across the courts and tribunals would need to ensure appropriate human manual review processes and define the evidential status of AI-generated transcripts. In other words, AI transcripts are reviewed by humans to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of legal services exports on economic growth.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The UK legal sector is a national asset and an engine of economic growth. As highlighted in the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy, in 2024 alone, the UK legal sector contributed £42.6 billion to the economy and posted a trade surplus of £7.4 billion. The UK is the largest legal services market in Europe and is second only to the US globally. English law is vital to global trade and investment and governs 40% of cross-border business transactions, £11.5 billion in mediation cases and £80 billion in insurance contracts annually. The Ministry of Justice is committed to supporting the sector’s growth and to maintaining the UK’s position at the forefront of global legal services.
As a catalyst for economic growth, legal services play an important role in the UK’s growth agenda. The Ministry of Justice works to support UK legal services across the globe, including in the European Union. My Department is working closely across government, with our EU counterparts and with the legal sector, to support the implementation of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The Agreement includes a specific provision on legal services that entitles UK lawyers to practise home and international law across the EU without further qualification. This is helping to maintain the UK’s strong cross-border legal capability and ensuring continued access to European markets.
To maintain the UK’s position at the forefront of global legal services, as part of the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy, the Ministry of Justice has designed bespoke interventions to support growth across key areas of the sector. They focus on enhancing our court system and the attractiveness of the jurisdiction, supporting lawtech growth, demonstrating our commitment to the Rule of Law and maintaining the strength of English and Welsh law. As a major step in delivering our commitments, the Deputy Prime Minister launched the English Law Promotion Panel on 8 December 2025. Bringing together academics, and key legal, business and marketing experts, the Panel will focus on how to reinforce English and Welsh law’s status as a leading choice for international business. My Department also leads the GREAT legal services campaign, a long-standing initiative showcasing the strengths of English and Welsh law, promoting the UK as a leading hub for international dispute resolution and facilitating international engagement with overseas partners. I have joined GREAT trade missions including visits to Toronto in November 2025 and Chicago in April 2025 to personally champion UK legal services to a global audience.