header-logo header-logo

14 April 2011 / Mark James
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

The end of champerty?

Mark James considers where a recent Court of Appeal ruling leaves the doctrine of champerty

Can a solicitor provide his own client with an indemnity against the client’s contingent liability to pay the other side’s costs in contentious business or does such an indemnity render the entire retainer void for champerty? Cases at first instance (Dix v Townend [2008] EWHC 90117 and Lewis v Tenants Distribution Limited [2010] EWHC 90161 (Costs)) reached different conclusions. The issue reached the Court of Appeal in Morris v Southwark LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 25, [2011] All ER (D) 183 (Jan).

Morris was a landlord and tenant case against a social landlord for disrepair to the claimant’s home. The claim settled for £10,000 compensation plus an agreement by the council to carry out the necessary repairs and pay costs. There was a conditional fee agreement (CFA) (ie, a “no win no fee” agreement) with a 10% success fee and an indemnity-against-other-side’s costs (IAOSC). Legal aid is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll