Crittenden v Bayliss [2002] EWCA Civ 50 (17 January 2002)

Crittenden v Bayliss [2002] EWCA Civ 50 (17 January 2002)

The agreement was not champertous or contrary to public policy because Mr De Crittenden had a legitimate interest in the litigation proceeds arising from prior joint venture work, and his assistance did not constitute prohibited solicitor's work.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 50
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Robin De Crittenden; Defendant/appellant: Charles Albert Bayliss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Champerty, Public Policy, Joint Venture Agreements
Contract Law Civil Procedure Champerty Public Policy Joint Venture Agreements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin De Crittenden

Claimant/respondent

Charles Albert Bayliss

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between Mr De Crittenden and Mr Bayliss was champertous or contrary to public policy
  2. 2 Whether Mr De Crittenden had a legitimate interest in the litigation proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was not champertous or contrary to public policy because Mr De Crittenden had a legitimate interest in the litigation proceeds arising from prior joint venture work, and his assistance did not constitute prohibited solicitor's work.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal
  • Legal Services Commission funding assessment of both parties' costs