On 29 January 2026, the High Court handed down an important judgment in Henderson & Jones Limited v Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited, providing significant clarification on the law of assignments and litigation funding.

The Court robustly dismissed an application for strike out and summary judgment brought by the defendant, reinforcing a modern and commercially realistic approach to assignments of claims.

Background to the claim

Henderson & Jones Limited is a litigation investment company that acquires and funds litigation and arbitration claims. In this case, it had taken an assignment of a professional negligence claim against Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited, an insurance broker.

The underlying dispute concerned the placement of an insurance policy that failed to respond when the insured risk materialised. As a result, the insured parties did not receive payment under the policy and were unable to fund and pursue the litigation themselves. Henderson & Jones acquired the claim pursuant to a deed of assignment and brought proceedings as assignee.

The strike out and summary judgment application

Following a one-day hearing in October 2025 before His Honour Judge Bird (sitting as an interim Judge in Charge of the London Circuit Commercial Court), the defendant challenged the validity of the assignment on four separate grounds. It contended that the claim should be struck out and that summary judgment should be entered in its favour on the basis that the assignment was invalid.

Each of those grounds was rejected. The Court dismissed the application in full.

Key legal principles confirmed

The judgment addresses several important legal issues that are highly relevant to litigation funders, insolvency practitioners, insurers, and law firms.

The “insolvency exception”

The Court confirmed that where a company enters an insolvency procedure, its causes of action constitute “property of the company”. As such, they are capable of a valid assignment without offending public policy. This “insolvency exception” remains a firmly established principle and provides a clear route for claims to be monetised for the benefit of creditors.

Champerty and genuine commercial interest

The defendant argued that the assignment was champertous and therefore invalid. The court rejected this contention and reaffirmed a modern, pragmatic approach.

An assignment that does not fall within the insolvency exception will not be champertous where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the litigation. That interest may arise because the assignment supports or enlarges an existing validly acquired claim. Importantly, the court confirmed that both the primary claim and any supporting claim may be acquired under a single instrument of assignment.

The judgment also emphasised that the court should adopt a relaxed and commercially realistic approach to allegations of champerty. The true objective is to prevent only those arrangements that amount to “wanton and officious intermeddling” and are genuinely contrary to public policy. The narrow focus on “genuine commercial interest” found in some older authorities does not reflect the modern position.

Personal services contracts and assignment

The court distinguished between contracts for personal services and contracts containing an express prohibition on assignment. While the right to performance under a personal services contract is generally not assignable, the right to sue for breach of contract will usually be assignable. The absence of an express anti-assignment clause is therefore highly significant.

Sharing the proceeds of litigation

The court further confirmed that an arrangement involving the sharing of litigation proceeds with the assignor does not prevent an assignment from qualifying as a valid legal assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This provides reassurance to those structuring commercial claim transfers and funding arrangements.

Why this matters

This judgment is a clear endorsement of the legitimacy of properly structured claim assignments and litigation funding arrangements. It reinforces the principle that causes of action are valuable assets capable of transfer and commercialisation, particularly in insolvency and distressed scenarios where claimants may otherwise lack the resources to pursue meritorious claims.

For litigation investors, law firms, and policyholders facing uninsured losses, the decision provides welcome clarity and confidence that well-drafted assignments will be upheld.

Insolvency litigation funding options

Litigation funding, the assignment of claims and/or ATE insurance can play a pivotal role in assisting insolvency practitioners (IPs) in meeting their obligations. Insolvency practitioners in insolvency litigation can make use of the following funding methods:

After-the-event (ATE) legal insurance – ATE insurance is generally used to protect from adverse costs risk & Security for Costs requirements. After-the-event (ATE) legal expenses insurance is perhaps best thought as similar to a ‘swap’. For either no upfront fee or a small upfront fee, the insurer takes on all of the risk of the potential adverse costs award. The claimant has swapped their obligation to pay the defendants in the event of a loss, with the obligation to pay the insurer in the event of a win.

This ‘swap’ is generally an attractive swap as the client is likely to be in a better financial position following a loss. Also, the payment to the insurer will only be a percentage of the adverse costs rather than the whole amount.

Third party litigation funding – In some cases, third party litigation funders may be willing to provide funding for an insolvency dispute claim in exchange for a percentage of any financial settlement or damages awarded. This option can be attractive for individuals who cannot afford to pay for legal fees themselves but have a strong case. ATE insurance is often used in conjunction with this type of funding.

Assignment of litigation – Some types of disputes can be assigned to a third party, usually for an upfront payment and a share of recoveries (after costs). This model can be useful on smaller cases when the ATE and CFA model would not deliver value. But giving up control can sometimes be costly, especially on larger disputes. Working with a broker can be an effective way to understand the options and evaluate the best course of action, as well as providing the insolvency with a written record of the process undertaken.

How can Annecto Legal assist?

Disputes arising in insolvency proceedings can be costly and procedurally challenging. Annecto Legal regularly assists licensed practitioners and liquidators who are involved in the administration or liquidation of a company.

We assist a wide range of clients in finding the appropriate insolvency litigation funding, assignment options and after-the-event (ATE) insurance. We ensure you meet your professional obligations in a cost-effective manner and provide written reports to place on file.

If you are in the process of pursuing or defending an insolvency dispute and want to find out whether we can assist in helping you fulfil your obligations and secure the right deal, then contact Annecto Legal.