Massai Aviation Services v A-G of the Bahamas [2007] UKPC 12 (26 February 2007)

In the above landmark case, the privy council held that the assignment of litigation rights was valid under Bahamian law and that the position under English law is effectively the same.

In England both the crimes and the torts of 'maintenance' and 'champerty' have been abolished by ss 13(1) and 14(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

"Maintenance" is

"the giving of assistance or encouragement to one of the parties to an action by a person who has neither an interest in the action nor any other motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference"

whereas "champerty" is

"a particular kind of maintenance, namely maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to give to the maintainer a share of the subject matter or proceeds thereof, if the action succeeds".

(cf. Law Com No 7, Proposals for Reform of the Law relating to Maintenance and Champerty, 1966 as referred to in para. 12 of the judgment).

A contract involving maintenance or champerty is (and this remains the law in England) unenforceable and void.

However, later English cases have developed the concept of "genuine commercial interest" which slowly erodes the application of the maintenance and champerty restriction.

The judge, Baroness Hale, held that there is nothing 'wanton or officious' in the original owners wanting to retain part of what they owned (originally resided in the assignor company). Neither was it against public policy, notwithstanding the fact that the right was assigned in consideration of $10 (referred to as 'litigation trafficking').