Zabihi v Janzemini

Zabihi v Janzemini

The assignment of the second defendant’s costs rights to the first defendant is valid as it constitutes an assignment of property (a debt), not a bare right to litigate, and is not champertous. 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.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Zabihi; Defendant/appellant: Janzemini
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Following Trial and Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Costs, Champerty, Freezing Orders, Costs Assessment

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application Following Trial and Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the assignment of costs rights from the second defendant to the first defendant is valid or champertous
  2. 2 Whether the £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), not a bare right to litigate, and is not champertous. 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 declared valid and not champertous.
  • The £50,000 paid into court by the claimant is to remain in court and is not to be released at this stage.