“Firms cannot automatically be held liable for costs when they have funded a claimant’s disbursements in a failed claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
The Lawyer, 11th April 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Where a court had found that arrangements entered into by copyright owners with a claimant copyright owner to sue intended defendants in its own name and on behalf of the other owners for alleged breach of copyright were not champertous and that it was proportionate to make an order for disclosure to enable the other owners to have their infringement claims brought, since their interests in enforcing their copyrights outweighed the interests of intended defendants in protecting their privacy and data protection rights, there was no justification for the court to grant relief to the claimant alone and not the other owners without identifying some factor as affecting the balance of the competing interests identified.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Champerty used to be a crime. Now it is known as third-party litigation funding and has developed into an investment industry backed by up to £500m of investor cash looking for lucrative courtroom opportunities.”
The Guardian, 25th May 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A conditional fee agreement which provided for the claimant’s solicitors to indemnify her against payment of the defendant’s costs if the claim was dismissed was not champertous or otherwise contrary to public policy. As a result its inclusion in a conditional fee agreement which in all other respects complied with the requirements of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 did not invalidate the agreement.”
WLR Daily, 26th January 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024