Access to justice cannot be taken for granted. High litigation costs, financial risks and the gradual decline of public legal aid make it increasingly difficult for many parties to pursue meritorious claims. In his PhD research ‘Resistance to Third-Party Litigation Funding in Europe’, Adrian Cordina, external PhD candidate at Erasmus School of Law, examines how third-party litigation funding (TPF) has developed in Europe, what forms of resistance this funding mechanism has encountered, and to what extent that resistance is justified. Cordina conducted his PhD research within the Law & Business department. His dissertation was supervised by Xandra Kramer, Professor of Private Law, and Louis Visscher, Professor of Law and Economics, both affiliated with Erasmus School of Law. He defended his dissertation on 26 November 2025.
Third-party litigation funding is a financing arrangement in which an external funder covers the costs of legal proceedings in exchange for a share of the proceeds in the event of success. In recent years, TPF has gained increasing visibility in Europe, particularly in complex and collective litigation. At the same time, the subject remains controversial. Critics point to potential conflicts of interest, the excessive commercialisation of civil justice and the lack of regulation. It is precisely this tension that lies at the heart of Cordina’s research.
Access to justice under pressure
The motivation for the research stems from broader developments within the European legal system. As Cordina explains: “The cost and risk associated with litigation, combined with the continued decline of public legal aid, continue to undermine effective access to justice for meritorious claims in Europe.” Against this background, alternative forms of private litigation funding have become increasingly important. Yet result-based funding mechanisms such as TPF continue to encounter significant resistance.
According to Cordina, that resistance is not always proportionate to the actual risks involved. He notes: “Although TPF has received growing attention, driven by the increasing relevance of TPF in facilitating access to justice in Europe, particularly in the context of complex and collective litigation, for which TPF is often indispensable, at the same time, it raises fundamental questions about regulatory oversight, potential conflicts of interest and the commercialisation of the civil justice system.” His central research question therefore asks how TPF has developed in Europe, what has impeded its wider acceptance, and to what extent the resistance it encounters is warranted.
Regulation: divergent approaches
A key part of the dissertation concerns the regulation of TPF in Europe - or the absence thereof. Cordina shows that approaches at European level are far from uniform. The European Parliament has advocated a relatively restrictive framework in its resolutions. By contrast, the European Law Institute’s (ELI) Principles on Third-Party Funding offer, in Cordina’s view, a more balanced and supportive approach. The European Commission’s 2025 Mapping Study primarily highlighted divergences across Member States.
The ELI principles place emphasis on claimant autonomy and transparency rather than outright restriction. As Cordina explains, they are based on the idea of informed choice and aim to protect litigants without unduly limiting access to funding. Such a ‘light-touch’ regulatory approach may help preserve the benefits of TPF while addressing legitimate concerns about its potential risks.
Economic analysis and vested interests
In addition to legal-doctrinal and comparative analysis, Cordina adopts an economic and empirical perspective. From an economic point of view, he examined whether TPF gives rise to greater conflicts of interest or agency problems than other commonly used funding arrangements, such as hourly billing, contingency fees or legal expenses insurance. His findings do not support that assumption. As Cordina states: “From an economic point of view, TPF does not appear to generate significantly greater conflicts of interest or agency problems than comparable funding arrangements, including hourly billing, contingency fees and legal expenses insurance.”
This raises the question of where resistance to TPF originates. According to Cordina, private interests play a significant role. “Resistance to TPF therefore appears to stem less from demonstrable risks and more from the private interests of certain special interest groups, such as corporate and insurance lobbies, whose influence may disproportionately shape public discourse, perceptions and regulatory outcomes.” In this way, the debate surrounding TPF is placed within a broader context of power, interests and access to justice.
Societal relevance
The societal relevance of the research is significant. TPF touches upon fundamental issues relating to access to justice, legal protection and the enforcement of rights. Especially in collective and cross-border litigation, external funding is often indispensable. At the same time, outside the area of consumer collective redress, the sector remains largely unregulated in many European jurisdictions.
Cordina emphasises that this tension calls for a nuanced and evidence-based approach. “There are at present access to justice gaps and possible insufficiencies in deterrence of wrongdoing in Europe,” he argues. It is therefore crucial, in his view, that strong forms of resistance to TPF do not prevail. “On the contrary, meritorious litigation should be able to be funded through a variety of funding options without undue hindrance.”
Looking ahead
In his dissertation, Cordina identifies cautiously positive developments. Recent initiatives and reports suggest a growing willingness across Europe to regulate TPF through light-touch frameworks rather than more restrictive ones. “There are welcome indications that a form of ‘light-touch’ regulation is forthcoming in many European jurisdictions,” he notes, “which would largely preserve TPF’s benefits, while mitigating concerns over its potential risks.”
Ultimately, the research seeks to contribute to a more balanced and evidence-based debate on third-party litigation funding. One that looks not only at potential risks, but also at what is required to ensure effective access to justice in Europe.
- PhD student
- More information
Read Cordina's research via this link.
