PhD / Access to justice is an important human right that ensures adequate redress for harm, and which consequently helps deter future wrongdoing. Without access to justice citizens are precluded from the full enjoyment of their economic and social entitlements. The cost of litigation is a significant impediment to access to justice. Although the courts have attempted to increase access to justice by broadening the range of available dispute resolution options and by improving productivity through the implementation of case flow management systems, the cost of prosecuting claims remains disproportionately high and unaffordable for most small to medium sized claimholders. Legal claim assignment to parties able to aggregate claims and to apply their expertise as litigation entrepreneurs to deal with claim prosecution efficiently is one means of redressing the imbalance between the cost of claim prosecution to individual claimholders compared to the value of their claims. However, the well-entrenched doctrines of maintenance and champerty prohibit legal claim assignment. The continued resort to the doctrines of maintenance and champerty despite a strong and independent modern judiciary reflects distaste for claim commodification. However, the advent of litigation funding and its acceptance by the High Court of Australia in Campbell’s Cash and Carry v Fostif Pty Ltd (and to some extent United Kingdom and United States courts) on access to justice grounds has challenged conventional maintenance and champerty dogma. Together with other measures such as the introduction of conditional fee agreements that shift the cost of funding access to justice from the public to the private purse, the resistance to full claim alienability has been significantly weakened. The thesis argues that full claim alienability is favoured on normative and efficiency grounds and examines developments in Australia, England and the United States, which portend toward claim commodification. In addition, the thesis examines regulatory instruments required to ensure that the present partial claim market and the potential full claim market operates fairly and efficiently. It also considers how claim commodification may affect the relationship between legal practitioners and claim holders. [Please note: For any information on access to the full text please conact the author.]
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/283304 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Waye, Vicki Catherine |
| Publisher | Faculty of Law University of Sydney. |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | en_AU |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | The author retains copyright of this thesis., http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/copyright.html |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds