0370 270 6000

R Factortame Limited & Others v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (number 8), Court of Appeal

9 July 2002
The issues

Expert evidence – contingency fee – expert having financial interest – champerty.

The facts

Grant Thornton, a firm of Accountants, entered into an agreement in July 1998 with the Claimant’s Factortame Limited, whereby Grant Thornton advised Factortame in connection with litigation in return for 8% of the damages. The issue arose as to whether or not that contract was champertous and therefore unenforceable.

The decision

1. The Court considered the decision in Field -v- Leeds City Council (Surveyor employed by City Council allowed to give evidence in a housing disrepair claim against tenants who sued the City Council) with approval and Liverpool Roman Catholic Arch Diocesan Trustees -v- Goldberg (expert called on behalf of a party who was a long-standing friend), in which latter case, they believed the Judge had fallen into error in taking the view that he had necessarily to exclude the expert evidence.

2. In any individual case, it was necessary to see if the agreement tended to conflict with public policy and in particular, with regard to the interests of the Defendant. Conditional Fee Agreements were now permitted by Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999. That Section did not apply to the provision of services which were ancillary to the conduct of litigation. However, it was an indication of a radical shift in public policy. Conditional fees were permitted to increase access to justice. They were aimed at ensuring that those without resources could fund claims which deserved to be funded.

3. For an expert to act on a contingency basis, was to give the expert a significant financial interest in the case. Such an interest generally was highly undesirable and it would be rare that the Court would consent to an expert being instructed under a Contingency Fee Agreement.

4. In this case, Grant Thornton had not acted as experts but had funded independent experts. Having regard to that fact, and the shift in public policy and the fact that liability had already been decided when Grant Thornton were instructed and that they had had no part to play on the issue of liability before the House of Lords, the agreement was not in these circumstances champertous.

5. Where there was doubt as to the status of evidence, the issue should be presented to the Court at Case Management and at the earliest possible stage so that if expert evidence was to be excluded, any further necessary Directions could be given.


Experts tempted by Contingency Fee Agreements should beware the words of the Court of Appeal%u2026 “%u2026 the threat to his objectivity posed by a Contingency Fee Agreement may carry greater dangers to the administration of justice than would the interest of an Advocate or Solicitor acting under a similar agreement. Accordingly, we consider that it will be in a very rare case indeed that the Court will be prepared to consent to an expert being instructed under a Contingency Fee Agreement”.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up