Editing Champerty and maintenance (section)

===England and Wales===
Maintenance and champerty have not been crimes or torts since the passing of the [[Criminal Law Act 1967]].<ref>[[Criminal Law Act 1967]], ss.13-14</ref> However, the 1967 Act stated:

{{Blockquote | The abolition of criminal and civil liability under the law of England and Wales for maintenance and champerty shall not affect any rule of that law as to the cases in which a [[contract]] is to be treated as contrary to [[public policy (law)|public policy]] or otherwise [[illegal agreement|illegal]]. | section 14(2) }}

There are circumstances in which a non-party who funds litigation can be liable for [[costs (English law)|costs]], if the action fails.<ref>[[Senior Courts Act 1981]], s.51(1) and (3)</ref><ref>''Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v. Interbulk Ltd'' [1986] AC 965</ref><ref>''[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/655.html Arkin v Bouchard Lines]'' [2005] EWCA Civ 655</ref>

For instance, in ''[[Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd]]''<ref>[1998] Ch 170</ref> the Court of Appeal reincarnated the tort against the assignment of a [[wrongful trading]] claim by a liquidator to a specialist litigation company to pursuing directors for wrongful trading. This has come under criticism given that claims against directors are enforced sub-optimally as company liquidators, typically accountants, are cautious to take on risks rather than save as much of the company as possible.