0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Princo v Phillips, Chancery Division, 16 September 2003

25 September 2003
The issues

Costs – non-party – funding of action.

The facts

This was a claim brought by Phillips for alleged patent infringement against Aventi. The subject matter of the patent related to unlicensed discs made by Princo. Phillips was aware that Aventi obtained its supplies from Princo, but decided not to join Princo to the litigation. Princo paid the costs of the Defence of Aventi. That funding was relied on to defend the action. Princo eventually decided, becoming concerned as to the extent of the liability to refuse to continue the funding. Subsequently Aventi went into liquidation. The action collapsed. Princo were joined for the purpose of seeking costs.

The decision

1. It was clear from the Authorities (Murphy -v- Young & Co 1997 and Hamilton -v- Al-Fayed 2002) that a clear distinction had to be drawn between disinterested funders and funders whose interests would be advanced by a successful outcome to the litigation.

2. It was a precondition for the making of any order against a funder that without the funding, the litigation would not take place.

3. If the funder was a “disinterested funder” an order would not be made.

4. It was clear in this case that Princo had an interest in the outcome of the English proceedings. Princo was not disinterested. Moreover, the funding was necessary for the action to be defended and the action would not have been defended but for the funding. Princo should pay the costs of the action.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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