JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2015] EWHC 1063 (Ch) (21 April 2015)

JEB Recoveries LLP v Binstock [2015] EWHC 1063 (Ch) (21 April 2015)

The assignment to JEB Recoveries LLP included debts and was not a bare assignment of a cause of action. Mr Wilson retained a substantive interest in the outcome. The arrangement did not offend public policy against champerty or undermine the integrity of the legal process. The claim is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1063 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: JEB Recoveries LLP; Defendant / Applicant: Judah Eleazar Binstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process (champerty) / Post Jurisdictional Challenge, Pre Trial
Outcome
Application to strike out the claim as champertous dismissed.
Legal Topics
Champerty, Assignment of Claims, Maintenance, Security for Costs, Public Policy
Civil Procedure Contract Law Litigation Funding Champerty Assignment of Claims Maintenance Security for Costs Public Policy

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEB Recoveries LLP

Claimant / Respondent

Judah Eleazar Binstock

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process (champerty) / Post Jurisdictional Challenge, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment of Mr Wilson's claim to JEB Recoveries LLP is champertous and contrary to public policy
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment to JEB Recoveries LLP included debts and was not a bare assignment of a cause of action. Mr Wilson retained a substantive interest in the outcome. The arrangement did not offend public policy against champerty or undermine the integrity of the legal process. The claim is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the claim as champertous dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim for aggravated damages provisionally struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as groundless.
  • Permission to appeal granted if requested.