Can the opposing party require you to submit the funding agreement for your lawsuit?

A litigant who does not have the resources to litigate can turn to an outside investor called a third-party litigation funder. This third party funds the litigation costs in exchange for a share of the proceeds in the event of a profit. But what if the other party demands that you disclose the details of that funding agreement? The Brussels Court of Appeal gave a clear answer in a judgment of 10 October 2025: the disclosure of such an agreement cannot, in principle, be enforced.

The facts: a commercial dispute with major financial implications

The case revolved around a conflict between online marketing firm Proxistore and technology giant Google Ireland. Proxistore, which sells advertising space, depended on Google's ad auction for its services. When Google suspended access to its platform due to alleged payment delays, Proxistore's business was jeopardized.

Proxistore went to court and, through unilateral proceedings, obtained an injunction requiring Google to immediately restore the services, under penalty of a 1 million euro fine for each hour of delay. Due to a technical glitch, the reactivation took longer than expected, leading to penalties of 76 million euros. Proxistore then had Google's accounts frozen for this amount.

In the subsequent appeal proceedings, Google put forward a remarkable defence. Google demanded that Proxistore produce all documents relating to the external funding of the lawsuit. Indeed, Google suspected that Proxistore was not acting in its own interests, but solely for the benefit of external financiers, and was using the proceedings as a speculative ‘business model’.

Appeal court decision

The Brussels Court of Appeal adamantly rejected Google's question. The essence of the decision is that the financing of a lawsuit by a third party is not a relevant factor in assessing the merits of the case.

The court based its ruling on Article 877 of the Judicial Code, which states that the production of a document can only be ordered if it involves the proof of a "relevant fact." According to the court, the question of who pays court costs is irrelevant to the legal issues in dispute, such as the court's jurisdiction, the urgency of the proceedings or Proxistore's rights.

The court specifically ruled on the following points:

1. Litigation funding is not illegal: The mere existence of external litigation funding (Third-Party Litigation Funding or TPLF) is not illegal or contrary to public policy in Belgium.
2. No impact on personal interest: The fact that a plaintiff is funded does not mean that it no longer has a personal and direct interest in its claim. Proxistore's interest was the prompt restoration of services, which is a clear personal and legitimate goal regardless of who is funding the proceeding.
3. Irrelevance of foreign law: Google argued that litigation funding might be illegal in Ireland, the jurisdiction where any enforcement of the Belgian judgment would have to take place. The court swept this argument aside, stating that such questions should be evaluated exclusively by the court in the country of enforcement.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is significant for the growing practice of litigation funding in Belgium. Although most EU member states, including Belgium, do not yet have specific legislation around TPLF, this ruling confirms its acceptance in principle in our legal order. The decision is in line with the observation that TPLF can be a useful tool to ensure access to justice.

The discussion of disclosure of funding agreements is a central issue in European debates on TPLF. There are concerns that external funders may take control of a procedure and drive it from a purely profit motive, which could lead to abuses. The European Parliament, in a resolution of 13 September 2022 even recommended the introduction of a licensing system for process financiers to ensure transparency and reliability.

However, the Brussels court takes a pragmatic approach. By stating that the funding agreement is not relevant to the substance of the dispute, the court protects the confidentiality of the commercial relationship between the litigant and its funder. This is an important signal to the market: as long as the plaintiff can demonstrate a legitimate interest of its own, the question of who pays for the proceedings is a matter of no concern to the opposing party. This creates a favorable environment for the further development of TPLF in Belgium.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important practical implications for several parties:

• For the litigant (plaintiff): You are not required to reveal the details of your financing agreement. This protects your strategic position and the confidentiality of your agreements. It strengthens your ability, even with limited resources, to assert your rights against a financially stronger counterparty.
• For the defendant: You cannot simply use opposing counsel's funding as a procedural weapon to delay or divert attention from the merits of the case. The argument that the plaintiff would no longer have a "personal interest" is significantly weakened by this ruling.
• For litigation funders (funders): The ruling provides greater legal certainty and confirms that their business model is legitimate within the Belgian legal system. Protecting the confidentiality of their agreements is a crucial factor for investing in the Belgian market.

FAQ (frequently asked questions)

Is external litigation funding legal in Belgium?
Yes, there is no law prohibiting it. This judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal confirms that litigation financing by a third party is in principle accepted in the Belgian legal system.

Can a judge ever require me to submit a financing agreement?
Only in very exceptional circumstances. The general rule, as confirmed in this judgment, is that the agreement is not relevant to the merits of the case and therefore need not be presented. The court can only order the submission of a document if it proves a "relevant fact," which was not the case here.

Do I lose my right to pursue a case if I get funded?
No. As long as you have a personal, direct and legitimate interest in the claim, you retain the right to pursue it. External funding does not affect this.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Brussels Court of Appeal of 10 October 2025 is an important step in the recognition and framing of litigation funding in Belgium. It provides the necessary discretion to litigants and their funders and prevents opposing parties from misusing funding to undermine the proceedings. It is a clear victory for access to justice.