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’. He added that, while champerty had not ‘wither[ed] away’, its ‘scope . . has been shrunk greatly’. The correct question was whether ‘in accordance with contemporary public policy, the agreement has in fact caused the corruption of public justice. The court must consider the tendency of the agreement.’
Steyn LJ
[1993] 3 All ER 321
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – De Crittenden v Bayliss CA 17-Jan-2002
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’, . .
Cited – Sibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.223622
