Read the full judgment text of HCCT000005/1994 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 25 November 1994 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Kaplan in Chambers.
Champerty - Whether the doctrine applies in Hong Kong and to arbitration proceedings - Consultancy agreement providing for payment of a percentage of monies recovered by negotiation or arbitration - Defendant's challenge that agreement is champertous and void - Examination of historical and modern authorities on champerty including Giles -v- Thompson [1993] 3 AER 321 - Court holds that (1) champerty doctrine applies in Hong Kong under Application of English Law Ordinance Cap. 88 as a matter of public policy; (2) champerty does not apply to arbitration proceedings as arbitration is a private consensual process distinct from public litigation; (3) the consultancy agreement is not champertous given absence of any 'wanton and officious intermeddling' or impropriety and commercial equal bargaining strength of parties; and (4) the 'on account' payments due upon submission of claim are enforceable debts irrespective of whether any monies have yet been recovered. Judgment entered for plaintiff for the sum claimed with interest and costs order nisi granted.
Legal issues: Whether the law of champerty applies in Hong Kong · Applicability of champerty doctrine to arbitration proceedings · Whether the consultancy agreement is champertous · Whether the on account payments are due despite no recovery
Outcome: Judgment for the Plaintiff; consultancy agreement is not champertous and the on account payment is due.