Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
High Court ruling on strike out and summary judgment in a disputed Centec assignment claim, including disclosure issues, reflective loss, and champerty.
Blundell & Anor v Davies & Ors [2026] EWHC 176 (Ch) (02 February 2026)
The High Court partly dismissed a strike-out and summary judgment application in a dispute over Centec’s affairs, striking out only Mrs Blundell’s personal claim against two defendants.
DLA Piper Uk LLP v Henshaws Farming LLP & Ors [2025] EWHC 542 (Ch) (17 March 2025)
Master Clark dismissed strike out and summary judgment applications, finding limitation and assignment issues were fact-sensitive and should go to trial.
The High Court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss DLA Piper’s claim, holding that limitation and assignment issues under section 32 and champerty needed trial.
The Recognition Defence and Collateral Purpose Plea were struck out as misconceived and without prospect of success; the Trustee's standing is established by the extant Recognition Order, and collateral purpose is not a bar in these proceedings. The Movables Defence, Sanctions Plea, and Maintenance and Champerty Plea were not struck out or summarily determined, as they raise fact-sensitive issues and potential abuse of process or public policy concerns that require trial.
Source excerpt
The tribunal erred in law by proceeding solely on the basis of the representative's oral assurance of authority in highly unusual circumstances, without taking further steps to investigate and satisfy itself as to the factual position regarding authority and representation. This was procedurally unfair to the respondent. However, the tribunal was not required to investigate maintenance or champerty on the facts as presented.
Source excerpt
The Claimant's claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office have no real prospect of success because only the CPS was the prosecutor, there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution, and there is no evidence of malice or bad faith. The assignments from ZCL and ZRL to the Claimant are void and unenforceable as they amount to maintenance and champerty, with the Claimant lacking a genuine commercial interest at the time of assignment.
Source excerpt
The court held that service of the claim form and particulars by an agent for a litigant in person was valid, but refused summary judgment on champerty.
Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 1148 (TCC) (18 May 2017)
The court held that service by an agent for a litigant in person was valid, and refused summary judgment on maintenance and champerty, leaving that issue for trial.
Simpson v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149 (12 October 2011)
The Court of Appeal held that a bare tort claim for personal injury assigned to a person with no legitimate interest was void as champertous and contrary to public policy.
Explore more
