On 15 September, an article from Omni Bridgeway was concerned with a recent case in England involving the question of champerty and of funding assigned claims held in a special purpose vehicle (SPV), possibly owned by the funders themselves.  It explains champerty and the associated common law rule of maintenance, saying that a person is guilty of maintenance if he supports litigation in which he has no legitimate concern without just cause or excuse, and that champerty occurs when the person maintaining another seeks a share of the proceeds of the action.  It says that people speak of champerty being an aggravated form of maintenance.  It explains that the case law regarding maintenance and champerty is really anchored in the decision of the House of Lords in a 1994 case.  It observes that champerty and maintenance issues that are specific to the common law are to be contrasted with the approach taken by civil law legal systems, where no such rules exist, but where one relies simply on the more general legal doctrines underlying tortious acts, i.e. fairness and reasonableness.!


Any modest contributions for my time and ongoing expenses are welcomed!  I have a page where you can do so, and where one-off contributions start as low as $3, at

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: