Zabihi v Janzemini [2009] EWHC 3471 (Ch) (07 December 2009)

Zabihi v Janzemini [2009] EWHC 3471 (Ch) (07 December 2009)

The assignment of the second defendant's costs rights to the first defendant is valid as it constitutes an assignment of property (a debt) and not a mere right to litigate; there is no evidence of champerty. The £50,000 paid into court should not be released as there is no clear surplus due to the claimant and the figures do not justify release at this stage.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3471 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Zabihi; Defendant/appellant: Janzemini
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division High Court Application / Post Trial Application Regarding Assignment of Costs and Release of Funds
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Costs, Champerty, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Property Law Assignment of Costs Champerty Freezing Orders Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zabihi

Claimant/respondent

Janzemini

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division High Court Application / Post Trial Application Regarding Assignment of Costs and Release of Funds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment of the second defendant's costs rights to the first defendant is valid or champertous
  2. 2 Whether £50,000 paid into court to fortify a cross undertaking in damages should be released to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment of the second defendant's costs rights to the first defendant is valid as it constitutes an assignment of property (a debt) and not a mere right to litigate; there is no evidence of champerty. The £50,000 paid into court should not be released as there is no clear surplus due to the claimant and the figures do not justify release at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The assignment of costs rights from the second defendant to the first defendant is valid and not champertous.
  • The £50,000 paid into court by the claimant is not to be released at this stage.