New Judgment – Henderson & Jones Limited v Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited [2025] EWHC 3155 (Comm)

After a 1-day hearing in October 2025, the High Court (His Honour Judge Bird, interim Judge in Charge of the London Circuit Commercial Court) has handed down a judgment dismissing an application for strike out and summary judgment that raises important issues of law in relation to assignments and litigation funding.

Henderson & Jones is a litigation investment company that purchases and funds litigation and arbitration claims.  By a deed of assignment, Henderson & Jones had taken assignment of a professional negligence claim against an insurance broker, Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited.  The claim relates to the placement of an insurance policy by Tysers that failed to respond to the insured risk occurring and where, without proper payment under the policy, the insureds were unable to fund and pursue the litigation themselves.  Henderson & Jones claims as assignee pursuant to a deed of assignment with the insureds.

Tysers, as Defendant, applied to strike out the claim and for summary judgment based on its contention that the assignment was invalid.  It raised no fewer than four bases for challenging the assignment, but the Court rejected each and every basis.

The following points of note can be derived from the judgment, which will be of interest to any parties involved in litigation funding and assignments:

• • Under the “insolvency exception”, causes of action of a company at the time of entry into an insolvency procedure are “property of the company” which are capable of being validly assigned without falling foul of any rules of public policy.
  • An assignment that does not fall within the insolvency exception will not be champertous if the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the litigation, which can be because the assignment is to support or enlarge an existing validly acquired claim. Further, the validly acquired claim and the other claim that supports or enlarges the first claim can both be acquired under a single assignment or instrument.
  • In any event, the Court should take a relaxed view to questions of champerty, and the aim is to weed out only transactions which are genuinely contrary to public policy because they amount to “wanton and officious intermeddling”. The narrow focus on “genuine commercial interest” in some of the older cases is contrary to modern authority.
  • Where a contract is—either expressly or impliedly—a contract for personal services, that is not the same thing as where the contract contains an express prohibition on assignment. In fact, whilst the rights of performance of a contract for personal services will generally not be assignable, the rights to claim for breach of contract will generally be assignable.
  • The possible sharing of the fruits of litigation with the assignor does not prevent the assignment from being a valid legal assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The trial of the claim is listed for six days in March 2026.

The full judgment can be read here.

Angus Groom of South Square appeared for the successful Respondent and Claimant (appearing with James Pickering KC, Enterprise Chambers).

Angus and James were instructed by Weightmans LLP (Jessica Kraja, Robert Jones and Sophie Hudson).