Abraham & Anor v Thompson & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 2179 (24 July 1997)

Abraham & Anor v Thompson & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 2179 (24 July 1997)

The court has no inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of third party funding or to stay proceedings for want of security for costs in the absence of demonstrated abuse of process; the right of bona fide plaintiffs to access the courts prevails over defendants' speculative concerns about enforceability of costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2179
Parties
Appellant: Abraham & another; Respondent: Thompson & another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Third Party Funding, Abuse of Process, Inherent Jurisdiction, Disclosure Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Third Party Funding Abuse of Process Inherent Jurisdiction Disclosure Orders

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham & another

Appellant

Thompson & another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of third party funding in the absence of abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether a stay or security for costs can be ordered against an individual plaintiff funded by a third party
  3. 3 Whether the risk of unenforceable costs against a third party funder justifies pre-trial disclosure or stay

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of third party funding or to stay proceedings for want of security for costs in the absence of demonstrated abuse of process; the right of bona fide plaintiffs to access the courts prevails over defendants' speculative concerns about enforceability of costs orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of disclosure set aside
  • No order for costs