Champerty meaning

When considering an arbitration, you should consider: how the dispute will be financed and managed overall can the client realistically cover your professional fees together with the arbitration expenses? could another party or source be prepared to pick up the entire bill? is any relevant insurance already in place and available? would after-the-event insurance cover be an appropriate option? might your firm accept a conditional fee arrangement, a damages-based agreement, or some other funding structure? See Funding Arrangements—Overview (note: this link is not arbitration-specific) is the client open to exploring third-party funding? ...

Tactus Holdings Ltd (in administration) v Jordan and others [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm) What was the background? Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Tactus) issued proceedings against seven individuals, the defendants, alleging a breach of warranty under a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) that Tactus had entered into for the purchase of shares in a company in February 2022 In May 2024, Tactus purported to transfer its rights and claims under the SPA to Chillblast Ltd (Chillblast) via the ‘Tactus Assignment’ Earlier, in March 2024, Chillblast acquired from Santander UK plc debts owed by Tactus under the ‘Santander Assignment’, which provided for a share of proceeds arising from Tactus’s claims against the defendants The defendants resisted Chillblast’s application to be substituted as the claimant, asserting that the Tactus Assignment was ineffective on the basis that it was both prohibited by the SPA and champertous in nature, with the result that the assignment upon which the proposed substitution depended was contrary to public policy ...

Russian trustee partially succeeds in a strike out application (Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment illustrates the court’s granular, issue-by-issue treatment of applications to strike out defences advanced on multiple distinct bases. The court may excise particular elements while permitting other grounds to go forward to trial. It underlines that claims backed by litigation funding can be vulnerable to challenge for champerty and maintenance. Here, the court was troubled by aspects of the funder’s conduct, especially in separate proceedings where it perceived a high degree of funder control over the litigant. Given those concerns, striking out the plea of champerty or maintenance would be inappropriate. That stance applies notwithstanding the comparatively narrow situations in which third‑party funded claims will be characterised as champertous...

Banking & Finance—February 2025 case round-up Tactus Holdings Ltd (in administration) v Jordan and others [2025] EWHC 133 (Comm) Assignment of rights—permitted assignment—champerty rules The Commercial Court refused an attempt to replace the existing claimant, finding the alleged transfer of rights was invalid due to contractual bars and was champertous. Reading the SPA’s assignment provision strictly, the court concluded that the applicant, Chillblast Ltd, was not a permitted assignee. It also determined that Chillblast lacked a sufficient legitimate interest to support the transfer. The judgment offers clear guidance on the construction of anti-assignment provisions, the contemporary application of champerty principles, and the procedural hurdles for a ‘change of party’ in commercial litigation. For further detail, see News Analysis: Court construes contractual restrictions on assignment and considers champerty in refusing substitution of a claimant (Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Jordan)...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note considers whether a non-party costs order (NPCO) will be made against a funder of litigation. It reviews how the courts approach NPCOs against litigation funders, distinguishing between pure funders and professional funders, and highlights concerns where orders surpass the amounts contributed and/or where costs are awarded on an indemnity, rather than standard, basis. The Arkin cap is analysed together with Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone (2016), which confirmed that the cap can cover sums provided specifically to satisfy security for costs requirements. It also considers Davey v Money (2019), where the High Court regarded the Arkin approach as a means to secure a just outcome in the particular circumstances, not a rigid rule, and imposed an NPCO exceeding the funding advanced under the agreement. Non-party costs orders—application Non-party costs orders—guidelines Non-party costs orders—company directors and shareholders Non-party costs orders—solicitors Non-party costs orders—who can they be made against? When applying for an NPCO against a third party...

This Practice Note sets out the requirements and considerations for permitted assignment of claims or causes of action in English civil litigation. For guidance on assigning a claim or a cause of action, with specific focus on what the assignment paperwork ought to contain in further detail, see Practice Note: How do I assign a claim or cause of action? Note: in this Practice Note, references are to the transfer of both causes of action and claims. A cause of action is taken to mean '...a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person' (Letang v Cooper), while a claim denotes a claimant’s formal assertion of that cause of action against a defendant. In the authorities, the expressions 'assigning a cause of action' and 'assigning a claim' are sometimes treated as interchangeable. For the purposes of this Practice Note, for ease of reference, unless context dictates otherwise, we refer to: assigning 'causes of action' when...