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.
Danckwerts J
[1955] Ch 363
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.183807