Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 JULY 2014

Champerty Doesn’t Pay! – HKSAR v. Ip Hon Ming & Others

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

The District Court of Hong Kong recently convicted a solicitor and a recovery agent for champerty, sending a clear message to recovery agents and solicitors that litigation funding in return for a fee is illegal.

Hong KongLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Keywords: recovery agents, litigation funding, champerty

Summary

The District Court of Hong Kong recently convicted a solicitor and a recovery agent for champerty, sending a clear message to recovery agents and solicitors that litigation funding in return for a fee is illegal.

Full Update

Champerty occurs when a disinterested party funds the litigation of another with a view to gaining part or a percentage of any award of the litigation. The involvement of recovery agents in personal injury cases has brought about a revival of champerty as an offence as such agents share a portion of the compensation obtained by victims of personal injury. Such arrangements are unfavourable as they result in victims being deprived of all their compensation.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from