³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

Legal News

Court construes contractual restrictions on assignment and considers champerty in refusing substitution of a claimant (Tactus Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Jordan)

Published on: 03 February 2025

Table of contents

  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Decision
  • Court rationale
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • Case details
  • Feedback request

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed an application to substitute a party for the existing claimant, holding that the purported assignment of rights was ineffective due to contractual restrictions and void for champerty. The court narrowly construed the assignment clause in the contract, finding Chillblast Ltd, the applicant, did not qualify as a permitted assignee. It also ruled Chillblast lacked a legitimate interest to justify the assignment. The judgment clarifies that the CPR 19.2(4) requirements for party substitution are disjunctive and applies a balance of probabilities test to meeting them. This case offers significant guidance on interpreting anti-assignment clauses, the modern application of champerty rules, and ‘change of party’ procedural requirements in commercial litigation. Written by the Dispute Resolution team at ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô.

Popular documents