Formal Regulation of Third Party Litigation Funding Agreements? A South African Perspective

Keywords: Access to justice, Champerty, Maintenance, Non-lawyers, Pactum de quota litis, Public policy, Third party litigation funding agreements

Abstract

In South Africa third party litigation funding agreement as a tool that provides access to justice is not legislated with regard to non-lawyers. This article is based on research conducted to determine whether regulating this type of agreement would facilitate in fostering the policy that favours access to justice. A brief comparative study showed that English law permits third party litigation funding agreements in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. However, unlike in South African law, English law also has a body that regulates the conclusion of third party litigation funding agreements. The Association of Litigation Funders introduced a voluntary Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders in 2011 and an updated one in 2016, which regulates the conclusion of third party litigation funding agreements. The Code of Conduct protects the litigant against abuse by the funder and the funder against non-compliance by the litigant. Despite being a "self-regulatory" legislative initiative that governs most of the funding agreements in England, this Code does not bind non-members of the Association. In South Africa there is no such voluntary regulation of third party litigation funding agreements. Consequently, litigants may be prejudiced by the litigation funder in instances where a funder receives a disproportionate percentage of the capital award. The study on which this article draws investigated whether there is a need for an effective legislative response that regulates third party litigation funding agreements in South Africa. It was found that there is a need for formal regulation with regard to third party litigation funding agreements because there are no clear guidelines on the conclusion of the agreements in South Africa.

Author Biography

Mpho Justice Khoza, The University of South Africa

Department of Private Law

Lecturer

References

Literature

Beatson, Burrows and Cartwright Contract
Beatson J, Burrows A and Cartwright J Anson’s Law of Contract 29th ed (Oxford University Press 2010)

Christie and Bradfield Contract
Christie RH and Bradfield GB Christie’s The Law of Contract in South Africa 6th ed (Lexis Nexis 2011)

Druker Contingency Fees
Druker KG The Law of Contingency Fees in South Africa (Harwick Publishers 2007)

Hutchison and Pretorius Contract
Hutchison D and Pretorius CJ (eds), The Law of Contract in South Africa 2nd ed (Oxford University Press 2012)

Middleton and Rowley Civil Costs
Middleton S and Rowley J Cook on Costs (Lexis Nexis 2013)

Beisner and Gary 2012 (October) ILR
Beisner JH and Gary AR “Stopping The Sale on Lawsuits: A Proposal to Regulate Third-Party Investments in Litigation” 2012 (October) ILR 1-20

Hodges, Peysner and Nurse Litigation Funding Status and Issues
Hodges C, Peysner J and Nurse A Litigation Funding Status and Issues (Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford 2012)

Hurter 2011 CILSA
Hurter E “Access to justice: to dream the impossible dream?” 2011 (3) CILSA 408-427

Hurter 2001 CILSA
Hurter E “Contingency fees: the British experience and lessons for South Africa” 2001 CILSA 71-86

Law Commission of England Proposal for Reform of the Law Relating to Maintenance and Champerty
Law Commission of England, Proposal for Reform of the Law Relating to Maintenance and Champerty (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1966)

Jackson Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report
Jackson R Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (The Stationery Office 2010).

Rabin (November 1935) Cal L Rev
Rabin M ‘Maintenance by Champerty’ (November 1935) Cal L Rev 48-78

Scott 2004 SAMercLJ
Scott S “Encouraging the Good Samaritan – a different approach to pacta de quota litis, champerty and maintenance: case comments” 2004 (16) SAMercLJ 477-488

Torlhurst Contract
Tolhurst G The Assignment of Contractual Rights (Hart Publishing 2006)

Van Niekerk 2013 (April) De Rebus
Van Niekerk G “Door closed on common law contingency fees” 2013 (April) De Rebus 50-50

Wallis 2011 (August) Advocate
Wallis JM “Reform of the costs regime - a South African perspective” 2011 (August) Advocate 33-37

Winfield (1919) L Q Rev
Winfield PH ‘Neville v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1919] AC 368’ L Q Rev 233-238.

Winfield (1919) L Q Rev
Winfield PH ‘The history of maintenance and champerty’ (1919) L Q Rev 35-50

Case law

England

Alabaster v Harness [1895] 1 QB 339

Aratra Potato Co v Taylor Johnson Garrett [1995] 4 All ER 695

Arkin v Borchard Lines [2005] EWCA Civ 655

British Cash and Parcel Conveyors Ltd v Lamson Store Service Co Ltd [1908] 1 KB 1006

Fender v St John Midway [1938] AC 1 13

Giles v Thompson 1994] 1 AC 142

Master v Miller (1791) 4 Term Rep 320

Re Trepca Mines Ltd (No2) [1963] Ch 199

Re Trepca Mines Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 357

Wallis v Duke of Porland (1797) 3 Ves 494

South Africa

Campbell v Welverdiend Diamonds Ltd 1930 TPD 287

De la Guerre v Ronald Bobroff & Partners Incorporated [2013] JOL 30002 (GNP)

Gold Fields Ltd v Motley Rice LLC 2015 (4) SA 299 (GJ)

Green v De Villiers; Dr Leyds NO & The Rand Exploring Syndicate Ltd (1895) 2 OR 289

Hollard v Zietsman (1885) 6 NLR 93

Hugo & Miller v The Transvaal Loan & Finance & Mortgage Co (1894) 1 OR 336.

Mayne v James & The High Sheriff (1893) 10 CLJ 61

Masango v Road Accident Fund 2016 (6) SA 508 (GJ)

Patz v Salzburg 1907 TS 526

Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc v IMF Ltd 2013 (6) SA 216 (GNP)

Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc. v National Potato Co-Operative Ltd 2004 (6) SA 66 (SCA)

Scholtz v Merryweather 2014 (6) SA 90 (WCC)

Schweizer's Claimholders' Rights Syndicate Ltd v The Rand Exploring Syndicate Ltd (1896) 3 OR 140
Walker v Matterson 1936 NPD 495

Legislation

England

Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders 2011

Code of Conduct for Litigation Funders 2016

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990

South Africa
Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1999

Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

National Credit Act 34 of 2005

Internet sources
Burger 2014 http://www.werksmans.com/legal-briefs-view/let-litigation-funder-beware/
Burger P 2014 Let the litigation funder beware http://www.werksmans.com/legal-briefs-view/let-litigation-funder-beware/ accessed 09 January 2017

Cokayne 2013 http://www.salfco.com/docs/SALF%20launch%20%20Press
%20Release%20Pretoria%20News%203%20June%2013.pdf
Cokayne R 2013 Litigation Funder to Help Out 'Man in the Street' http://www.salfco.com/docs/SALF%20launch%20%20Press%20Release%20Pretoria%20News%203%20June%2013.pdf accessed 9 January 2017

Justice not Profit 2015 http://www.justicenotprofit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-TPLF-Paper.pdf
Justice not Profit 2015 Third Party Litigation Funding in the United Kingdom: A Market Analysis http://www.justicenotprofit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-TPLF-Paper.pdf accessed 25 May 2016

Taylor 2013 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/10/8023/27
Taylor J 2013 Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/10/8023/27 accessed 25 April 2016

Vickovich 2012 https://www.africanlawbusiness.com/news/african-litigation-funding-market-a-hot-potato
Vickovich A 2012 African Litigation Funding Market a Hot Potato https://www.africanlawbusiness.com/news/african-litigation-funding-market-a-hot-potato accessed 9 January 2017
Views
  • Abstract 0
  • pdf 0
  • XML 0
Views and downloads are with effect from 11 January 2018
Published
2018-08-29
Section
Articles