A firm of accountants had agreed to provide their services as experts in a case on the basis that they would be paid by taking part of any damages awarded. The respondent claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful.
Held: The tort of champerty as such had been abolished, but the rule remained as part of the law of public policy. There remained good reason why the principles of maintenance and champerty should apply with particular rigour to those conducting litigation. It would be only a rare case where an expert could properly financially support a case. In the absence of a statutory framework, the court must look for evidence of current practice in public policy. In this case the claimants had already succeeded on liability at the time when the experts were instructed, and public policy was not affronted.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Clarke
Times 09-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002,  EWCA Civ 932,  3 WLR 1104,  QB 381,  3 Costs LR 467,  4 All ER 97,  BLR 1
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 58
England and Wales
Cited – British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd 1908
The court explained the law underlying the civil and criminal penalties for the maintenance of an action by third parties: ‘It is directed against wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others in which the [maintainer] has no . .
Cited – Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) CA 1975
The court was asked whether Moir would be entitled to legal aid to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against its majority shareholder.
Held: A minority shareholder bringing a derivative action on behalf of a company could obtain . .
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Cited – Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others CA 26-May-2005
The court considered the costs aftermath of a huge claim undertaken on a no win no fee basis and failing. The funder of the claim complained at an award of costs against it.
Held: Those who fund litigation must accept that their risks extend . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008
The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
Cited – Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc and Another QBD 28-Feb-2003
Objection was made to the use of an expert witness who had formerly been a senior employee of the defendant.
Held: The court set out criteria for testing the independence of a proposed expert witness: ‘i) It is always desirable that an expert . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
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 . .
Cited – Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.174276