Not exact matches
This has a whiff of
champerty, in my opinion — a thought that clearly has occurred to Juroviesky and Ricci, in view of paragraph 2 of their «Retention Agreement», which asks the prospective plaintiff to agree that he / she «
did not acquire the services that are the subject of this action at the direction of the Lawyers or in order to participate in the Litigation.»
German law
does not recognise the common law doctrines of
champerty and maintenance, and no contractual obstacles need be overcome to offer litigation funding.
It held that a litigation funding agreement
did not violate the rule against
champerty and maintenance and indeed helped to provide access to justice to the plaintiff.
Although there is no clear law allowing or prohibiting third party funding, the Courts of the BVI have demonstrated a willingness to uphold litigation funding arrangements provided they
do not offend common law principles of
champerty and maintenance.
The FC rejected this argument and clarified that although the doctrine of
champerty is relevant to the extent that the courts have power to render champertous agreements unenforceable, and thereby prohibiting the funder from getting a share of the proceeds after litigation, [18] it
does not confer courts the discretion to approve or disapprove of funding arrangements as a pre-condition before litigation.
It is now clear that the centuries - old doctrines of maintenance and
champerty, which still prohibit third party funding for litigation,
do not apply to funding of arbitration and mediation.