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 defendants on affidavit whether any, and if so what, third party or parties had provided all or any substantial part or parts of the money used to fund this action as regards costs incurred by him from the date when they were added as parties.
Judges:
Mr. Justice Lloyd
Citations:
Gazette 11-Jun-1997, Times 19-Aug-1997, Times 15-May-1997
Citing:
Appealed to – 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. . .
Cited – Broxton v McClelland 6-Nov-1992
. .
Cited – Condliffe 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 . .
Cited – Grovewood 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 . .
Cited – Murphy, and Murphy v Young and Co’s Brewery Plc, Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 20-Nov-1996
When an unsuccessful party has had its legal costs funded under legal expenses insurance, should the insurer be held liable to pay the successful party’s costs? The insurer had not instigated the litigation, nor controlled it, and could not be . .
Cited – McFarlane 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77613