Claim of champerty where cause of action has been assigned

An individual assigned his claim against the claimant to a company formed for that purpose, and in which he had an interest, in return for £1. The defendant argued that the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process because it is champertous. It is an established principle that the bare assignment of a cause of action is champertous and so invalid. However, the judge held that there were factors in this case which meant that the claim did not offend the public policy against champerty (eg the rights assigned were not just the cause of action but also included debts).

The judge opined that the claimant could and should instead apply for security for costs: "it seems to me that the law provides a procedure which, depending upon the court's view of all the circumstances of the case, affords a defendant confronted with maintained litigation adequate protection against such abuse of the legal process".