In Dispute among different persons having common interest, issuances of judgement to the loss of one of the plaintiff’s doesnot lose the rights of other plaintiffs. For this reason, objection by THIRD PARTY is not needed. In Dispute among defendants having common interest, if the judgment issued against one of the defendants and from the result of that judgment is used to the loss of other defendant, loss of created to the their rights and to delete induced loss, it should be protest to the that judgment. Because issuance of orders doednot loss to the THIRD parties, orders are not protestable by THIRD PARTY. In case of accepting THIRD allegation, desition of court is to the form of judgment. Since court cannot contraditts main claim in case of order, there isnot possibility of formal objection to the main claim by THIRD protester.

The increase in litigation costs, including court costs, attorneys' fees, expert's fees, etc., has made access to justice challenging for some people. Therefore, potential claimants turn to existing tools, including THIRD-PARTY litigation funding (TPLF), to cover these costs. In TPLF, the THIRD-PARTY funder, who is not originally a PARTY to the suit, finances the PARTY’, s litigation costs in return for a share of the proceeds of the court verdict or settlement. Although the TPLF can meet the needs of some people to cover the costs of litigation, due to its infancy, it brings with it major challenges. Challenges have different dimensions and involve the judicial system as well as TPLF actors, including imposing a high rate of return on the funded PARTY, funding frivolous lawsuits, control of litigation by the THIRD-PARTY funder, Problems with disclosure, breach of confidentiality, and Inadequacy of capital and many other challenges. The Islamic Republic of Iran is no exception to these challenges. Allowing TPLF in the absence of regulatory bodies and governing regulations, in addition to creating the above fundamental challenges for the funded PARTY and the other PARTY to the dispute, can lead to increase problems in the judicial system.

Despite increase in the use of liability insurances, the legal nature of such contracts is not clear. The justification of impact of this contract on the contracting parties and the injured THIRD parties is only possible by understanding the nature of such contracts. Inapplicability of the general rules of contracts in liability policies such as the obligation of the insurer in paying compensation to the injured THIRD parties even when the insured causes damage intentionally and other instances which cannot be justified relying on general rules, all indicate that the nature of these insurance contracts must be looked at on their own. Although, like England, in Iran we can speak of an obligation in favor of a THIRD PARTY and paying damage attributed to the insured, it seems that the nature of the contract is the compulsory liability, guarantee of the compensation for the injured by the rule of law and within the insurance contract.

"THIRD PARTY Ownership" is one of the restraint of Trade Law in Sport, whereby a THIRD PARTY acquires all or part of the player's economic rights for financing the player or injecting cash into the club. Contrary to  the common perception in the field, this mechanism does not grant the decision-making power of the contract to a THIRD PARTY, and therefore, this will not lead to a type of slavery or curtail a player’s freedom. As the result, it will not result in the THIRD PARTY’s interference in implementation of the contract which is in breach of Article 960 of the Civil Code and Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In practice, various countries adopted different approached to the validity of this mechanism. The present study shows that by relying on economic efficiency and justice this mechanism merely entitles a THIRD PARTY to the player’s incomes in his future transfers without any unfair wealth transfer to THIRD parties. FIFA regulations do not prohibit any investment by a THIRD PARTY, but they have banned him from influencing over club’s decisions. The mechanism could be introduced as a business model for football.

If a THIRD PARTY or execution of judicial decisions and judgments issued by the courts, he could be detrimental to the rights of their protests notify the competent authority. The basic difference in votes and protests against THIRD-PARTY claims administration will be different to hear a THIRD PARTY so that the main challenge in court the final judgment comes the court has handed down the verdict is submitted. The competent court to handle THIRD objection executive, is controversial; some know and some say issuing court to the competent court of jurisdiction is the executor of the sentence. And some consider both the righteous. Jurisdiction of the court executor, the legal reasoning more. Some opinions issued by the Supreme Court and the provisions of Articles 26 and 142 of the Civil Law enforcement and legal doctrine, supporting the idea. And some consider both the righteous. Jurisdiction of the court executor, the legal reasoning more. Some opinions issued by the Supreme Court.

THIRD-PARTY Funding In International Commercial Arbitration: THIRD PARTY funding had many limitations in past legal cases. As though in common law it considered as an example of champerty. Over the time by the rising costs associated with submitting a dispute to arbitration, TPF is now one of the hot topics in international commercial arbitration. The most and the first foremost reason for expansion of TPF is that is considered a solution of increasing access to justice for a PARTY with financial difficulties. One of the issues regarding TPF is conflict of interests. Legal principles of some arbitral institutions such as Singapor and Hong Kong considered the disclosure of TPF agreements as a way to prevent conflict of interests. There is no disclosure obligation for TPF agreements in our law system but in other hand there are some provisions that can be used to prevent the conflict of interests.

Financing of arbitration by a THIRD PARTY is an emerging phenomenon in the arbitration whereby a THIRD PARTY incurs the costs of arbitration proceedings in return for sharing the benefits of the arbitral award, which is likely issued in favor of the supported PARTY. Even a PARTY who has no problem of paying the arbitration fees may conclude an arbitration financing agreement with a THIRD PARTY in order to avoid the consequences of failure in arbitration. Although the THIRD PARTY play a significant role in enforcing the right of the parties to access to justice, this person is not a PARTY to the dispute and it is obvious that in some cases such as obtaining security for other PARTY's proceedings costs, no obligation can be imposed on him. In addition to the need to disclose a THIRD-PARTY identity on behalf of supported PARTY for arbitration, arbitrators are required to disclose any connection to this person.

THIRD-PARTY funding in international arbitration (TPF), as one of the methods of funding arrangements for international arbitration is an emerging phenomenon whose use is rapidly increasing, it plays a very important role in the development and expansion of international arbitration, and it has also challenged national legislators. This phenomenon has gradually attracted the attention of the arbitration community and as an undeniable and important fact, along with the expansion, different aspects of it are revealed. In less than a decade, TPF has entered the main stage of the international commercial arbitration market. On the one hand, "TPF" puts many bankrupt companies or small and medium-sized companies and even many large companies in a position where they can pursue their lawsuits in international arbitration authorities without financial worries,And on the other hand, it gives many investors an opportunity to use their funds in such a new business after experiencing the global financial crisis of 2008, which is not dependent on the functioning and profitability of financial markets or capital such as stocks. The development and expansion of any phenomenon first of all requires its cognition. It is expected that reading this article will help to understand this concept in Iran's legal system. No matter how much the use of "TPF" in international arbitration develops and expands, this issue will cause the expansion and development of arbitration. For this reason, this phenomenon has been introduced as the most important factor in the development of international arbitration in the world in the coming years.