← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case third party fundingrule of law

Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry

(2017) 20 HKCFAR 1
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

CFA held that third-party litigation funding remains prohibited under HK common law as champerty/maintenance, subject to recognised exceptions, though later modified by legislation for arbitration.

Key Principle

Champerty and maintenance in HK: CFA held third-party litigation funding remains prohibited under common law, except for recognised exceptions. (Note: subsequently modified by legislation for arbitration.)

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun P...