In re Valetta Trust v [2012] 1 JLR 1 (25 November 2011)

A third party funding agreement is not champertous and contrary to public policy if the plaintiffs retain control of the litigation and the arrangement merely facilitates access to justice.

Citation: [2012] 1 JLR 1
Parties: Plaintiff: Valetta Trust; Defendant: Unknown (third party funder)
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 25 November 2011
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: agreement not champertous; not contrary to public policy
Legal Topics: Maintenance and Champerty, Third Party Litigation Funding, Access to Justice

Contract Law Public Policy Maintenance and Champerty Third Party Litigation Funding Access to Justice

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Valetta Trust

Plaintiff

Unknown (third party funder)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether a third party funding agreement for litigation is champertous and unenforceable as contrary to public policy
2 Whether such an agreement facilitates access to justice

Ratio Decidendi

A third party funding agreement is not champertous and contrary to public policy if the plaintiffs retain control of the litigation and the arrangement merely facilitates access to justice.

Court Disposition

agreement not champertous; not contrary to public policy