Sir Alan Bates in 2024, after years leading the Post Office campaign. His case, funded by Therium, became the most public example of Britain’s for-profit “justice funding” model. Source: Welsh Government

Behind the feel-good ending of the Post Office Horizon scandal lies a template that looks uncomfortably familiar to those who have followed the Sulu heirs’ claim against Malaysia. And that template has a name: Therium Capital Management.

The Price of Justice but the British Edition

In 2019, 555 British sub-postmasters settled their group action against Post Office Ltd for £58 million. The case was championed by Sir Alan Bates, now knighted and compensated. But of that £58 million, nearly £46 million vanished into legal fees and funder returns, leaving victims with scraps. The litigation funder was Therium, through a Jersey shell named Therium Litigation Funding IC.

"But of that £58 million, nearly £46 million vanished into legal fees and funder returns, leaving victims with scraps."

The funding agreement, published by the Post Office Horizon Inquiry, shows a private deal between Therium and the claimants, giving the funder a seat at the steering table, literally. Under paragraph 2.4.3, Therium was not only to be informed immediately if a committee meeting was planned, but could “attend committee meetings in whatever manner they deem suitable.” So much for the supposed independence between claimants and financiers that the Association of Litigation Funders claims to uphold.

Two People, One Fund, and a Missing Appendix

The “steering committee” meant to guide the case had just two names: Alan Bates (Chairman) and Dr Kay Linnell, notably not a claimant. Both were entitled to compensation and expense reimbursements approved by the funder.

Linnell, a forensic accountant and Chartered Arbitrator, later told the press she had worked free of charge, though her witness statement says she was paid a retainer for 54.5 months. The mystery? The claimants couldn’t afford her. This leads to the next question: Who covered her bills? The answer, buried in the fine print, points back to Therium. And one crucial section "Appendix 1", which should list the full “Project Plan,” timelines, and strategy is missing. Redacted. Gone. Transparency, in other words, was not part of the funding model. What remains instead is a trail of partial disclosures and legal footnotes that hint at a far larger arrangement. Whatever was being financed, it wasn’t just a lawsuit, it was an operation, meticulously structured to stay in the shadows.

"Transparency, in other words, was not part of the funding model."

Justice as an Investment Product

The Horizon case was sold as a triumph of citizen justice, at the center stage ordinary Britons defeating a powerful institution. But the economics tell a darker story. Therium took the risk, but also controlled the cash. Funders, lawyers, and committee members received the majority of the proceeds. The sub-postmasters got less than 20% of what they fought for. In the world of litigation finance, this is called a successful exit. This profit-driven model raises ethical concerns, as it disproportionately benefits funders while potentially undermining the financial interests of those seeking justice.

"Funders, lawyers, and committee members received the majority of the proceeds."

This "success story" raises questions of the true purpose of seeking justice, with financial considerations taking precedence over the merits of the case. In practice, litigation funding firms like Therium walk away with the lion’s share, turning legal redress into a lucrative asset class. The very mechanism designed to empower claimants instead siphons their victories into corporate profit.

Echoes in Sulu: Same Model, Different Market

Therium’s fingerprints do not end in Britain. Its network and funder peers, from Harbour, Omni Bridgeway, and other offshore financiers, pioneered the same structure now seen in the Sulu heirs’ arbitration claim against Malaysia. There too, the claim is to fund a “moral cause.” There too, lawyers and funders drive the litigation while the nominal “heirs” remain figureheads. And there too, returns are structured first for investors, with justice arriving, if ever, much later.

The Post Office case is now being repackaged as proof that litigation funding “enables justice.” But in reality, it exposes how private capital captures public sympathy, turning victims into brand assets and moral outrage into structured yield.

A Question of Control and The Global Export of a British Idea

The Association of Litigation Funders code of conduct insists funders cannot “take control of litigation or settlement.” Yet in both the Horizon and Sulu examples, funders had real-time access to case meetings, strategy, and settlement decisions. Neil Purslow, Therium’s co-founder and current chair of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), likes to say funders “respect the administration of justice.” But when your business model depends on monetising lawsuits, that respect starts to sound like PR.

"Therium’s Post Office experiment became a prototype, a “fund-to-justice” pipeline that investors now export globally."

Therium’s Post Office experiment became a prototype, a “fund-to-justice” pipeline that investors now export globally. It legitimised the idea that you can privatise grievance.That moral claims can be securitised like assets. And that “justice” can live offshore in Jersey or the British Virgin Islands, waiting for payout day. The Sulu arbitration didn’t invent that model. It just copied it, right down to the secrecy, the shell structures, and the moral spin.

The Moral Mirage

When Sir Alan Bates finally received his seven-figure settlement this week, the UK press framed it as poetic justice. But if you strip away the headlines, the reality looks more like a prototype for industrialized grievance, where injustice is profitable, and redemption comes at a markup. For Therium, Britain was the test lab. For Sulu, it’s the sequel. And somewhere between Jersey and Jolo, justice became a line item.

REFERENCES

International Legal Finance Association (2025). ILFA: Best Practice Principles. https://www.ilfa.com

Post Office Horizon Inquiry. (2016). SMIS0000097: Agreement between Therium Litigation Funding IC and individuals listed. Post Office Horizon Inquiry. https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk

Post Office Horizon Inquiry. (2024). WITN00550100: Kay Linnell witness statement. Post Office Horizon Inquiry. https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk

Sky News. (2025, November 5). Post Office hero Bates lands seven-figure Horizon payout. Sky News. https://news.sky.com

The Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales (2018). Code of Conduct. https://associationoflitigationfunders.com

The Standard (2025, November 9). Sir Alan Bates: the government's new redress scheme for Post Office victims is 'half-baked'. https://www.standard.co.uk

Wintour, P. (2025, June 8). Post Office victims offered 'pathetic' payouts — 5% of their claims. The Times. https://www.thetimes.com