Choules v Siglin

Case [2002] WASC 230
Judgment

Supreme Court of Western Australia

  • Subscribe
  • |
  • Site map
  • |
  • Accessibility
  • Supreme Court Home Page

  • Judgments

  • Recent Judgments
  • Recent Civil Judgments
  • Recent Criminal Judgments
  • Judgments and Catchwords
  • By Citation Number
  • By Applicant
  • By Respondent

  • Advanced Search

  • Advanced Search

  • Reference Material

  • Explanation of Judgments

  • Help

  • Help
Return to List

CHOULES & ORS -v- SIGLIN & ORS [2002] WASC 230



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2002] WASC 230
Case No:CIV:1566/200126 AUGUST 2002
Coram:MURRAY J27/09/02
21Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:ADRIAN CLAUDE CHOULES
LESLEY BARBARA CHOULES
ARTHUR THORNDYKE DAVIES
INEZ THEONE DAVIES
OLIVER WILLIAM HARTLEY
DAISY HARTLEY
PETER NELSON
HELEN NELSON
JOHN FRANCIS PARKER
DOROTHY JANE PARKER
WILLIAM ROBERT ROY SMITH
JUNE ILMA SIGLIN
DAVID SIGLIN
GEOFFREY EDWIN HAYLES

Catchwords:
Practice & procedure
Application by defendants to stay proceedings and countermand entry for trial
Allegations of maintenance and champerty
Litigation lending agreement to fund action by mortgagees
Solicitors for plaintiffs have agreement with litigation funder
Particular fee structure discussed
Discretion to stay action for abuse of process

Legislation:
Debt Collectors Licensing Act 1964 (WA), s 3, s 13
Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 63(1), s 85, s 76, s 77
Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA), s 27, s 28
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 47(6)

Case References:
Bandwill Pty Ltd v Spencer-Laitt (2000) 23 WAR 390
Carob Industries Pty Ltd v Simto Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 970692; 11 December 1997
Freehill Hollingdale & Page v Bandwill Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 150
Gore v Justice Corp Pty Ltd (2002) 189 ALR 712
In re Oasis Merchandising Ltd [1998] Ch 170
In re Trepca Mines Ltd (No 2) [1963] Ch 199
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23
Magic Menu Systems Pty Ltd & MMS Franchising Pty Ltd v AFA Facilitation Pty Ltd, Janus Kobble Creek Pty Ltd & Simon (1997) 72 FCR 261
Newton v Gapes (1910) 12 WALR 86
Siglin v Choules & Ors [2002] WASCA 9
Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latreefers Inc [2000] EWCA Civ 36
Treacy v Rylestone Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 178
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
Abraham v Thompson [1997] 4 All ER 362
Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd [1956] VLR 436
Allsop v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 341
Australian Health Insurance Association Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 253
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd 184 ALR 616
Bevan Ashford (a firm) v Geoff Yeandle (Contractors) Ltd (in liq) [1999] Ch 239
Brown v Talbot & Olivier (1993) 9 WAR
Buiscex Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (in liq) (1998) 28 ACSR 357
Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia [1998] QB 22
Carnie v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 398
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Williams & Hodgson Transport Pty Ltd (1986) 162…

Continue reading Choules v Siglin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Choules v Siglin [2002] WASC 230
Case
[2002] WASC 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Choules v Siglin arose in the Federal Circuit Court, involving a dispute between the parties regarding the stay of proceedings and the countermanding of an entry for trial. The plaintiffs, Choules, sought to proceed with a claim against the defendants, Siglin, on the basis of a litigation lending agreement intended to fund the action. The defendants argued that the proceedings should be stayed due to allegations of maintenance and champerty, and that the arrangement between the plaintiffs' solicitors and the litigation funder constituted an abuse of process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the litigation lending agreement and the fee structure involved amounted to an abuse of process warranting the stay of the proceedings. The defendants contended that the agreement, which provided for a particular fee structure to be paid by the plaintiffs to the funder, was an improper form of maintenance and champerty, and therefore an abuse of the court's process. The court was required to determine if the arrangement between the solicitors and the litigation funder, and the fee structure that flowed from it, justified the exercise of the court's discretion to stay the proceedings.

The court considered the nature of the litigation lending agreement and the fee structure in the context of established legal principles regarding champerty and maintenance. It noted that such agreements, where solicitors have a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, are not inherently objectionable if they are transparent and do not interfere with the administration of justice. The court found that the agreement and fee structure in this case did not constitute an abuse of process. The arrangement was deemed to be transparent, and the fee structure was considered to be fair and reasonable. As a result, the court dismissed the defendants' application to stay the proceedings and countermand the entry for trial. The case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.