Norglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Etc: CA 6 Dec 1995

An assignment of a cause of action in order to be eligible to apply for Legal Aid is not against public policy. An assignment of a cause of action was not invalid solely on the ground that its purpose was to enable the action to be prosecuted on terms that the company would benefit from success. There was no jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs against Mr and Mrs Rodgers (who had taken the assignment from Norglen Ltd) and it would not in the circumstances be right to make an order against Norglen, which was dropping out of the action.
Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Hobhouse and Aldous L.JJ
Independent 12-Jan-1996, Times 06-Dec-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedAdvanced Technology Structures Ltd v Cray Valley Products Ltd CA 1993
An assignment of the cause of action should not be recognised or given effect because it was a ‘sham’.
Hirst LJ said that the assignment was: ‘a mere stratagem or device to enable the company to carry on the proceedings, with the support of Mr. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorglen Ltd (In Liquidation) v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd and Others; Circuit Systems Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v Zuken-Redac HL 1-Dec-1997
An assignment of a cause of action by a company in liquidation was valid, even though the dominant purpose was to avoid having to give security for costs, and to get legal aid. In dismissing the argument that the transactions were a device to defeat . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.84328