Bakewell v Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd

The appeal concerned an application to amend proceedings and join a party in litigation between Bakewell and Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd. The primary dispute revolved around whether certain claims assigned by the plaintiffs were valid, and whether this assignment rendered the entire proceedings unarguable. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was tasked with determining the merits of this application.

The central legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, it had to consider the principle prohibiting the assignment of a bare chose in action, as established in cases like *Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse* and adopted in Australia by *Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton*. This involved examining whether the test for determining rights incidental to property rights had been modified. Secondly, the court was required to assess the public policy underpinnings of this prohibition, specifically concerning maintenance and champerty, and whether these justifications were sufficiently fluid to warrant a summary determination.

The court reasoned that the application to amend and join was not unarguable. It noted that not all claims by all plaintiffs were assigned claims, and that proceedings against the defendant would continue regardless of the status of the assigned claims. The court also highlighted the importance of the principle articulated in *Wickstead v Browne*, and found that the area of law and the public policy justifications for the principle sought to be invoked were fluid. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to determine these complex issues on a summary basis.

Leave to appeal was refused, with costs awarded to the respondent.