04/11/2011
In the case of Simpson v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149, [2011] All ER (D) 102 (Oct) the Court of Appeal has ruled that an assignment of a bare cause of action in tort for personal injury was unlawful and void for reasons of public policy. Peter Hodson of GCN was interviewed for Lexis Nexis Current Awareness (published 1/11/11) about the implications of the case.
Extracts from the article as follows:
Peter Hodson says the Court was very clear in clarifying the principle that a claim for damages for personal injury was a chose in action which is capable of assignment. “However,” he adds, “the law will not recognise on public policy grounds an assignment of a bare right to litigate. For an assignment to be effective, the assignee must be able to demonstrate an interest of a kind the law does or should recognise as sufficient to support the assignment, otherwise the assignee would be guilty of ‘wanton and officious intermeddling with the disputes of others’. If the purpose of the assignment is to enable the assignee or a third party to make a profit out of the litigation the assignment will generally be void as savouring of champerty.”
...
He advises practitioners advising on potential assignments of causes of action for personal injury to be mindful that if the assignment is to be effective, “the assignee must be able to demonstrate an interest in the action which is more than a bare interest in the right to interest or the proceeds of the litigation”. He explains such an interest is likely to involve as its principal object the obtaining of a remedy for a legal wrong rather than as, in Mrs Simpson’s case, an interest that had little to do with the merits of the personal injury claim itself.
> The full article can be found on under Current Awareness on the Lexis Nexis network (subscription only) ref: LNB News LNB News 01/11/2011 79 "Court Confirms Law Will not Recognise Assignment of Bare Right to Litigate". Click here to sign in if you have an account.