Sanders v Templer ; Giles v Thompson ; Devlin v Baslington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Ralph Gibson and Lord Justice Steyn
Practice - care hire agreements - not champertous
Car hirers were not "trafficking in litigation" where they agreed with potential plaintiffs, whose cars were damaged in motor accidents and under repair, to supply them with free replacement vehicles provided the plaintiffs cooperated with the hirers in prosecuting claims against the defendants and paid them the hiring charges from the damages they received. Such agreements were not champertous and contrary to public policy.
The Court of Appeal so stated when (i) allowing an appeal by Matthew Sanders from Judge Hugh Jones, at Cardiff County Court, who had dismissed his application to strike out the defence of champerty raised by Marion Templer to the plaintiff's claim for recovery of car hiring charges following a road traffic accident in which his car was damaged; (ii) dismissing an appeal by Vanessa Thompson from Judge Nicholl, at Coventry County Court, who had rejected her defence of champerty to Christine Giles' claim, inter alia, for car hire charges following an accident in which her vehicle was damaged; (iii) granting Roy Baslington leave to appeal out of time and dismissing his appeal from Judge Hardy, at Manchester County Court, who had rejected his defence of champerty to Janice Devlin's claim, inter alia, for car rental pending repairs to her vehicle after an accident.
Mr Giles Wingate-Saul, QC and Mr Stephen Stewart for Mr Sanders; Mr Vernon Pugh, QC and Mr Christopher Moger, QC, for Mr Templer; Mr Edwin Glasgow, QC, Mr C Cory-Wright and Mr Christian Du Cann for Mr Thompson; Miss Hilary Heilbron, QC and Mr Michael Swainston for Mrs Giles; Mr Simon Goldblatt, QC and Mr Stuart Catchpole for Mr Baslington; Mr C G G Platts for Mr Devlin.
LORD JUSTICE STEYN said that the car hire firms targeted cases where the plaintiff was very likely to succeed in establishing the defendant's liability and was in no way contributorily negligent and where the defendant was insured. In such cases the car hirers offered free car hire to the plaintiff while his car was being repaired.
The hirers sought to recover the hire charges, not from the plaintiff, but in an action in the plaintiff's name against the defendant. The plaintiff was afforded free legal assistance at the expense of the hirers for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v Jp Morgan Portfolio Services Ltd
- Dorajay Pty Ltd v Aristocrat Leisure Ltd
-
Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefónica UK Ltd
...are champertous because they constitute assignments of bare causes of action coupled with a division of the proceeds recovered: see Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 at 153G, 161B-C (Lord Mustill). In my judgment counsel for the Claimants is correct to submit that the short answer to this ar......
-
R (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8)
...37 In reaching this conclusion we have been particularly influenced by the approach of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in Giles v Thompson. The issue in that case was whether the plaintiffs in two conjoined appeals could recover as damages the costs of hiring cars to replace thos......