53 The Observer would also note that in this litigation Mr Elliott wears a number of hats. As such, the likelihood of conflict is greater because of the increased number of roles that he has. He is the solicitor for Mr Bolitho. He is a director and secretary of the Litigation Funder. The Litigation Funder potentially stands to make a substantial gain or loss from the litigation. Whilst the Civil Procedure Act requires parties, litigation funders and the court to deal with litigation efficiently and cost effectively, another key requirement is the just resolution of disputes. Justice requires practitioners to observe their ethical duties and obligations to the court. As noted above, the court relies upon practitioners to apply an independent and objective mind when conducting a case on behalf of the client. There is a risk (which seems to be accepted) that that objectivity might be compromised to some degree where there is a 'no win no fee' arrangement because of the fees which the practitioner may have at stake. However, the Observer would likely conclude that the more that is at stake, the greater the risk that the lawyer will not bring or will not be seen to be bringing to bear the requisite degree of objectivity that the role of lawyer demands. The Observer would form the view that Mr Elliott may be influenced by the substantial financial interest that rests on the outcome of the case. The addition of his financial interest in what the Litigation Funder may gain or lose (dependent upon the outcome of the case) means that the risk that he will be, or will be perceived to be, unable to apply the necessary independence required as an officer of the court is a real risk that cannot be ignored. It is true that that risk is ameliorated to some extent by the undertaking that Mr Bolitho is willing to give and the legislative oversight that the Court has in a group proceeding.[62] Nevertheless, it does not lessen the risk sufficiently to make it a matter of such little significance that it can be ignored. The Observer will know that throughout the course of the proceeding there are likely to be a number of difficult interlocutory applications and, if a settlement cannot be achieved, there will be a trial. How the case is argued and what matters are put to the Court will be important. It is not only in respect of settlement offers that independence is needed. The Observer would be concerned that there is a sufficient risk that Mr Elliott's (indirect) shareholding and position as a director of the Litigation Funder will give the appearance that his role as a solicitor and officer of the court is compromised. That would be detrimental to the integrity of the judicial process. The large interest in the Litigation Funder (and, it follows, in the success fee, or conversely any loss occasioned by funding the proceeding) takes it a step beyond what is the practical reality that lawyers must be allowed to continue acting even though they have an interest in protecting payment of their fees (which can be substantial). If on no other basis, that is justifiable because of the need to ensure that there is access to justice for litigants who would not otherwise be capable of prosecuting good claims.