Anthony v KC Ittoop and Sons
Rule established
Bare right to sue is non-transferable (S.6(e)); but right to sue incidental to property transfer is valid
Facts
- Plaintiff transferred only the right to sue for damages (not the underlying property)
- Defendant argued transfer was void under S.6(e) as a "mere right to sue"
Issue
- Whether a mere right to sue for damages can be transferred independently of the property to which it relates.
Held
- A bare/naked right to sue, with no underlying property interest, is non-transferable under S.6(e). But assignment of property carries with it all incidental rights, including pending claims for damages caused to that property.
Ratio Decidendi
S.6(e) targets trafficking in litigation (maintenance and champerty). It prohibits transfer of a standalone right to sue. But where the right to sue is an incident of a larger property transfer, it travels with the property: this is not maintenance but natural incident of ownership.
How to use it in an exam
Cite in S.6(e) problems to draw the line between "mere right to sue" (void) and "right to sue accompanying property" (valid). Key line: "The prohibition targets bare litigation rights divorced from any property interest."
Source
Source: (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 394
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.