Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 92 (Jan)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Thorpe and Buxton LJJ

Representation Andrew Charman (instructed by Thurfields, Kidderminster) for the claimant.
  John Mason (instructed by Berry, Redmond & Robinson, Weston-super-Mare) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 17 January 2002

Catchwords

Contract - Champerty - Public policy - Claimant and defendant entering into joint venture - Claimant entering into agreement to help defendant conduct unrelated litigation for consideration of part of proceeds of litigation - Judge finding claimant entitled to proceeds of litigation - Whether agreement champertous - Whether agreement contrary to public policy.

The Case

The correct question for consideration in determining whether an agreement was champertous was whether or not it had been demonstrated that a party had a legitimate interest in the subject matter. In reaching that decision, a court would have regard to all aspects of the transaction taken together and looked at as a whole. In the instant case, the judge had been entitled to conclude that the claimant had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the litigation and that an agreement with the defendant to share the proceeds was not champertous or contrary to public policy.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.