the appellant has little or no income and money.
the case's legal fees have already been significant; the appellant has already undergone a trial, and likely the County Court and EWHC.
the claim for damages costs less than the legal fees, or the claim itself is not monetary.
- barristers (and/or solicitors) were instructed, possibly expensive QCs. It is unclear whether they were acting pro bono.
The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Please advise if there are cases that better match the assumptions above:
- R (on the application of Tigere) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Respondent)  UKSC 57
The appellant needed student loans, and so how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC?