SINGLETON & ANOR v FREEHILL HOLLINGDALE & PAGE No. SCGRG-00-77 [2000] SASC 278 (17 August 2000)

Practice - stay of proceedings - strike out - purported assignment of causes of action - application that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed, or alternatively stayed on the grounds that the further amended statement of claim, on the face of it, does not disclose any viable cause of action - whether assignment of causes of action between the plaintiffs constitutes unlawful maintenance and champerty - whether the defendant is entitled to invoke the "Ashun" principle against the plaintiffs. First plaintiff was a director of the second named plaintiff company, which was ultimately the subject of a winding up order - judgment entered against the first plaintiff in the original action - present defendant was not a party to the original action - defendant law firm retained to act as solicitor for both the corporate entity and its board of members, to advise in relation to all aspects of a proposed takeover - alleged negligence of defendant in relation to its obligations to the plaintiffs - plaintiffs said to have suffered loss as a result - deed entered into between the first named plaintiff and second named plaintiff purporting to assign causes of action - right to sue on assignment of a tortious claim. Whether, in the relevant circumstances, the defendant is a joint tortfeasor, who, pursuant to s 25 of the , is liable to indemnify the plaintiffs against, or, alternatively make contribution in relation to the damages awarded against them pursuant to a judgment entered, on the basis that the relevant loss occasioned and the damages awarded against the present plaintiffs, were caused or contributed to by the defendant's negligence - consideration of the nature and effect of s 25(1) of the - whether second named plaintiff is a tortfeasor liable. CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE - WHAT CONSTITUTES - Maintenance CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE - WHAT CONSTITUTES - Champerty - Other Cases Whether the assignment of the causes of action, between the first named plaintiff and the liquidator is contrary to public policy and invalid as constituting a champertous transaction or unlawful maintenance - discussion of the development of the concepts of maintenance and champerty - whether the liquidator/assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the causes of action and enforcing any rights which the first named plaintiff has against the defendant, in the proper discharge of its duties - consideration of assignability of rights of action in tort - if so, whether assignment of causes in action in present circumstances is valid.