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 case of lawful maintenance that the maintainer should accept a liability for a successful adverse party’s costs; for example, a member of a family or a religious fraternity may well have a sufficient interest in maintaining an action to save such maintenance from contractual illegality, even without any acceptance of liability for such costs. But in what one may call a business context (e.g. insurance, a trade union activity, or commercial litigation support for remuneration) the acceptance of such liability will always, in my view, be a highly relevant consideration.’
Judges:
Longmore J
Citations:
Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 08-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 366
Citing:
See Also – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Abraham 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 . .
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 – 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 . .
See Also – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83532