The defendant appealed a judgment saying the arrangement under which the plaintiff had conducted the litigation was champertous.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘[A]lthough some of what Mr De Crittenden did could be described as ‘solicitors work’, none of it was work that was peculiar to a solicitor, nor work that a client himself might not very well undertake with, no doubt, the advice and instructions of a solicitor in preparing his own case.’ and ‘The question in champerty is . . . what was the nature of the interest, if any, of the claimant in the litigation? The structure whereby he is remunerated does not affect that question unless it demonstrates (and in this case as I have already indicated it does not) that there is no legitimate interest in the subject matter. ‘
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 50
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Leave given – De Crittenden v Bayliss CA 21-May-2001
The defendant sought leave to appeal saying the agreement under which the plaintiff had sued was champertous. Leave given. . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Cited – Awwad v Geraghty and Company CA 8-Sep-1997
The court considered an application for leave to appeal as to whether a litigation agreement was champertous and void. . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson CA 1992
The interest that the rule of champerty exists to protect (the individual interest) is that of the opposite party. Steyn LJ described contingency fee agreements as ‘nowadays perhaps the most important species of champerty’ and were ‘still unlawful’. . .
Cited by:
Full Appeal – De Crittenden v Bayliss CA 21-May-2001
The defendant sought leave to appeal saying the agreement under which the plaintiff had sued was champertous. Leave given. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.188934