Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another: CA 24 Jul 1997

The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal.
[1997] EWCA Civ 2179
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAbraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .
CitedFitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
CitedA J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
ExplainedSingh v Observer Limited 1989
Once the occasion for the exercise of a power to award costs against a third party has arisen, the court, in order to enable it to be fully and appropriately exercised, will investigate so as to establish the identity of a third party maintainer of . .
CitedC T Bowring and Co (Insurance) Ltd v Corsi and Partners Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff had obtained a Mareva injunction, later discharged by agreement. The defendant sought an inquiry as to damages on the cross-undertaking given when the injunction was granted, alleging that it had suffered substantial loss. The hearing . .
CitedMartell v Consett Iron Co Ltd ChD 1955
In a case of maintenance (as opposed to champerty), a stay should not be ordered. The laws relating to maintenance and champerty must develop to accommodate to changing times. . .
CitedHill v Archbold CA 1968
Denning LJ said: ‘Much maintenance is considered justifiable today which would in 1914 have been considered obnoxious. Most of the actions in our courts are supported by some association or other, or by the State itself. Comparatively a few . .
CitedTrendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse CA 1980
A stay was sought against a bank which had financed a contract and was supporting litigation arising out of it.
Held: Although the liability in crime and tort had been abolished, Section 14(2) of the 1967 Act preserved the law as to the cases . .
CitedGrovewood Holding Plc v James Capel and Co Ltd ChD 15-Aug-1994
A champertous arrangement is unlawful. The action was time barred. It was not an assignment of the cause of action. Such a claim by a liquidator will not be permitted to proceed. The court granted a stay in an action being funded pursuant to a . .
CitedCondliffe v Hislop and Another CA 3-Nov-1995
The plaintiff, a bankrupt, pursued libel proceedings. He was being financed by his mother who had limited resources. She undertook to pay any order for costs, but the Master ordered a stay under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent . .
CitedMcFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1994
The court can order a champertous non-party to pay a successful defendant’s costs of defending the claim.
A non-party unlawfully supporting an action was ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.
Held: It may not be necessary to every . .
CitedTharros Shipping Co Ltd and Den Norske Bank Plc v Bias Shipping Ltd [No 3] 1995
The existence of a business relationship will not always lead the Court to expect a backer to accept liability for costs, e.g. if the financial backer is a bank lending money to a plaintiff, or as here an insurer but it will be a highly relevant . .

Cited by:
Appealed toAbraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142576