Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors

Disclosure of litigation-funding arrangements may be ordered where a prospective non-party costs application is not weak or fanciful. The court need not conduct a mini-assessment of the likely recoverable costs or decide whether a non-party costs order will ultimately succeed. Disclosure may be ordered before costs are finally assessed or unpaid, particularly where funders may usefully participate in detailed assessment. The court must consider the likely value of the information, proportionality and any legitimate confidentiality concerns. A confidentiality club is exceptional and requires clear justification, a real risk of collateral use, and terms no wider than necessary. The court must balance open justice, the importance of the information, the severity of the risk and the practical need for party representatives to access it.

The claimants brought proceedings alleging unlawful means conspiracies concerning their former interests in FESCO and the Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port. The claims were dismissed on jurisdictional and related grounds by Bright J, and permission to appeal was refused by Males LJ. The proceedings were therefore effectively at an end, subject to detailed assessment of substantial costs.

The defendants applied for disclosure of the identities and details of the claimants’ litigation funders. They wished to consider non-party costs orders and possible joinder before detailed assessment. The claimants opposed disclosure and proposed alternative funding or security, while seeking a confidentiality club. The issues were whether disclosure was just and proportionate, and whether the information should be protected from wider dissemination.

1. Disclosure ordered. The court ordered disclosure of the claimants’ litigation funders in the terms sought. The funding evidence was opaque, inconsistent and insufficient to enable the court or defendants to assess the reality of the claimants’ asserted ability to meet costs.
2. The relevant threshold was not whether a future non-party costs order was likely to succeed. The court should be slow to assess merits unless the proposed application was weak or fanciful. The defendants’ applications did not meet that description. Their lack of knowledge about the funders and the terms of funding made further assessment premature.
3. There was no requirement that costs liability first be finally assessed, or that an existing liability go unpaid, before a funder could be joined or disclosure ordered. Early joinder could assist funders in making submissions at detailed assessment.
4. The claimants’ proposed future funding did not displace the need for disclosure. Its source, asset disposal, timing and availability in the jurisdiction were uncertain. The defendants had a real, and in the judge’s view much greater than real, prospect of recovering substantial further costs.
5. Although pure funders may sometimes avoid non-party costs orders, there was no invariable rule. The court must examine the particular facts. Funding through complex structures controlled by a litigant might not properly be treated as pure funding.
6. Confidentiality club. A confidentiality club was imposed. Open justice was the starting point, but the confidential nature of funding arrangements and the evidence of a potential risk of harmful dissemination justified protection. The restriction was necessary to permit the defendants to consider non-party costs orders while protecting legitimate interests.
7. The club was to go no further than necessary. The desirability of party representatives having access, the importance and nature of the information, the identified risks and practical considerations were relevant. It was impracticable to exclude some defendants while permitting others to receive the same information.

The judgment describes the underlying proceedings as having been dismissed on jurisdictional and related grounds by Bright J. Permission to appeal was refused by Males LJ on 3 June 2025. This court determined the defendants’ disclosure applications and ordered disclosure subject to a confidentiality club.