January 26, 2026
In this case, the Royal Court had to consider the validity of an assignment of a tortious claim and whether it amounted to champerty.
The case arose from an incident at Jersey Airport in February 2025 when Grant Hardy, a Guernsey resident, was denied boarding at Jersey Airport due to Swissport’s interpretation of passport rules. He claimed £8,637.96 in losses. In March 2025, Mr Hardy contacted the Petty Debts Court to enquire about bringing a claim in Jersey noting that he resided outside of Jersey.
The Petty Debts Court said by email:
“You reside outside of Jersey and wish to bring a claim to the Petty Debts Court against either an individual or a company based on the island. To do so, you are required by law to provide an address for service in Jersey for yourself, which can be that of a friend or family member who resides on the island, or that of a Jersey lawyer who will represent you in the proceedings…
Alternatively, you could contact a debt collection agency in Jersey to deal with your claim.”
Mr Hardy subsequently purported to assign his cause of action against Swissport to Skyfall Collections Limited (Skyfall), a debt recovery agency in Jersey. Skyfall proceeded to issue proceedings in the Petty Debts Court against Swissport.
Swissport challenged the claim, arguing that the assigned was invalid and amounted to champerty – a prohibited practice whereby a third party supports litigation to profit. The Law Society of Jersey intervened, expressing concern about the implications for legal practice and public policy. The matter was transferred to the Royal Court due to its complexity and wider significance.
Two documents formed the basis of the assignment. The first document was a single page document titled ‘Assigned of Debt’ which stated:
“THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made the 21st day of March 2025 between Mr Grant Victor Hardy…(hereinafter called "the Assignor”) … and SkyFall Collections Limited…
WHEREAS Swissport…(hereinafter called "the Debtor/s") is indebted to the Assignor in the sum of £8,637.96 in respect of the wrongful denial of boarding by Swissport Staff at Jersey Airport on the 21st February 2025, resulting in lost holiday costs and associated costs (hereinafter called "the Debt") and the Assignor has agreed with the Assignee for the absolute sale of such debt to the Assignee, which is acknowledged upon the signing of this Deed,
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that the Assignor as beneficial owner herewith assigns the said sum of £8,637.96 is due and owing [sic] by the Debtor to the Assignor and all or any interest accrued and accruing to the Assignee absolutely to hold the full benefit and advantage thereof.”
The second document was Skyfall’s standard terms and conditions of assignment which provided that:
“1. The Assignor hereby absolutely transfers and assigns to SkyFall with full title guarantee and free from all encumbrances, all of its rights, benefits, interest and title to, in and under the Deed of Assignment, together with the benefit of all the rights and remedies, claims and demands in respect of the debt, or causes of action together with any proceeds of their enforcement. SkyFall hereby accepts the assignment of such rights, benefit, interest and title.
2. SkyFall will take such steps as It deems fit at its absolute discretion in order to obtain payment in respect of the debt or causes of action assigned.
3. The Assignor will provide Its reasonable cooperation with that process and shall use all best endeavours to provide such assistance or cooperation and to execute such further documentation as SkyFall may from time to time request.
4. SkyFall will pay to the Assignor the net proceeds of any recovery made, after deduction of any costs or expenses incurred by SkyFall in achieving the same.”
The Royal Court held that the claim was not a debt, despite being labelled as such, but rather a tortious cause of action for unliquidated damages. The fact that the claim was quantified did not alter its legal nature. The distinction was critical, as tortious claims are not generally assignable unless the assignee has a genuine interest in the subject matter.
The Court applied principles from English and Jersey law, which held that an assignment of a bare right to litigate unsupported by a legitimate interest is void as savouring champerty. In this case, Skyfall had no independent commercial or proprietary interest in the claim. It was not purchasing the claim for its own benefit, nor assuming any litigation risk. Instead, it was acting as a proxy for Mr Hardy, with proceeds remitted to him after costs. This arrangement failed the test of a valid assignment for a tortious action under Jersey law.
The Court also reaffirmed that champerty remains prohibited under Jersey customary law. Skyfall’s involvement was found to “plainly and obviously savour of champerty,” particularly where it lacked a legitimate interest, circumvented statutory protections such as rights of audience, and risked distorting the litigation process.
The proceedings were struck out with leave for Mr Hardy to reissue the claim in his own name within 28 days.
This judgment is a timely reaffirmation of the boundaries of lawful litigation conduct in Jersey. It highlights the tension between facilitating access to justice and preserving the integrity of legal proceedings. Whilst sympathetic to Mr Hardy’s predicament, the Court refused to allow procedural workarounds that undermine established legal norms.
The case also signals growing judicial concern about the role of debt collecting agencies and the need for Government to intervene to provide clarity as to how such agencies can operate.
In this case, the Royal Court had to consider the validity of an assignment of a tortious claim and whether it amounted to champerty.
The case arose from an incident at Jersey Airport in February 2025 when Grant Hardy, a Guernsey resident, was denied boarding at Jersey Airport due to Swissport’s interpretation of passport rules. He claimed £8,637.96 in losses. In March 2025, Mr Hardy contacted the Petty Debts Court to enquire about bringing a claim in Jersey noting that he resided outside of Jersey.
The Petty Debts Court said by email:
“You reside outside of Jersey and wish to bring a claim to the Petty Debts Court against either an individual or a company based on the island. To do so, you are required by law to provide an address for service in Jersey for yourself, which can be that of a friend or family member who resides on the island, or that of a Jersey lawyer who will represent you in the proceedings…
Alternatively, you could contact a debt collection agency in Jersey to deal with your claim.”
Mr Hardy subsequently purported to assign his cause of action against Swissport to Skyfall Collections Limited (Skyfall), a debt recovery agency in Jersey. Skyfall proceeded to issue proceedings in the Petty Debts Court against Swissport.
Swissport challenged the claim, arguing that the assigned was invalid and amounted to champerty – a prohibited practice whereby a third party supports litigation to profit. The Law Society of Jersey intervened, expressing concern about the implications for legal practice and public policy. The matter was transferred to the Royal Court due to its complexity and wider significance.
Two documents formed the basis of the assignment. The first document was a single page document titled ‘Assigned of Debt’ which stated:
“THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made the 21st day of March 2025 between Mr Grant Victor Hardy…(hereinafter called "the Assignor”) … and SkyFall Collections Limited…
WHEREAS Swissport…(hereinafter called "the Debtor/s") is indebted to the Assignor in the sum of £8,637.96 in respect of the wrongful denial of boarding by Swissport Staff at Jersey Airport on the 21st February 2025, resulting in lost holiday costs and associated costs (hereinafter called "the Debt") and the Assignor has agreed with the Assignee for the absolute sale of such debt to the Assignee, which is acknowledged upon the signing of this Deed,
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that the Assignor as beneficial owner herewith assigns the said sum of £8,637.96 is due and owing [sic] by the Debtor to the Assignor and all or any interest accrued and accruing to the Assignee absolutely to hold the full benefit and advantage thereof.”
The second document was Skyfall’s standard terms and conditions of assignment which provided that:
“1. The Assignor hereby absolutely transfers and assigns to SkyFall with full title guarantee and free from all encumbrances, all of its rights, benefits, interest and title to, in and under the Deed of Assignment, together with the benefit of all the rights and remedies, claims and demands in respect of the debt, or causes of action together with any proceeds of their enforcement. SkyFall hereby accepts the assignment of such rights, benefit, interest and title.
2. SkyFall will take such steps as It deems fit at its absolute discretion in order to obtain payment in respect of the debt or causes of action assigned.
3. The Assignor will provide Its reasonable cooperation with that process and shall use all best endeavours to provide such assistance or cooperation and to execute such further documentation as SkyFall may from time to time request.
4. SkyFall will pay to the Assignor the net proceeds of any recovery made, after deduction of any costs or expenses incurred by SkyFall in achieving the same.”
The Royal Court held that the claim was not a debt, despite being labelled as such, but rather a tortious cause of action for unliquidated damages. The fact that the claim was quantified did not alter its legal nature. The distinction was critical, as tortious claims are not generally assignable unless the assignee has a genuine interest in the subject matter.
The Court applied principles from English and Jersey law, which held that an assignment of a bare right to litigate unsupported by a legitimate interest is void as savouring champerty. In this case, Skyfall had no independent commercial or proprietary interest in the claim. It was not purchasing the claim for its own benefit, nor assuming any litigation risk. Instead, it was acting as a proxy for Mr Hardy, with proceeds remitted to him after costs. This arrangement failed the test of a valid assignment for a tortious action under Jersey law.
The Court also reaffirmed that champerty remains prohibited under Jersey customary law. Skyfall’s involvement was found to “plainly and obviously savour of champerty,” particularly where it lacked a legitimate interest, circumvented statutory protections such as rights of audience, and risked distorting the litigation process.
The proceedings were struck out with leave for Mr Hardy to reissue the claim in his own name within 28 days.
This judgment is a timely reaffirmation of the boundaries of lawful litigation conduct in Jersey. It highlights the tension between facilitating access to justice and preserving the integrity of legal proceedings. Whilst sympathetic to Mr Hardy’s predicament, the Court refused to allow procedural workarounds that undermine established legal norms.
The case also signals growing judicial concern about the role of debt collecting agencies and the need for Government to intervene to provide clarity as to how such agencies can operate.
In this case, the Royal Court had to consider the validity of an assignment of a tortious claim and whether it amounted to champerty.
The case arose from an incident at Jersey Airport in February 2025 when Grant Hardy, a Guernsey resident, was denied boarding at Jersey Airport due to Swissport’s interpretation of passport rules. He claimed £8,637.96 in losses. In March 2025, Mr Hardy contacted the Petty Debts Court to enquire about bringing a claim in Jersey noting that he resided outside of Jersey.
The Petty Debts Court said by email:
“You reside outside of Jersey and wish to bring a claim to the Petty Debts Court against either an individual or a company based on the island. To do so, you are required by law to provide an address for service in Jersey for yourself, which can be that of a friend or family member who resides on the island, or that of a Jersey lawyer who will represent you in the proceedings…
Alternatively, you could contact a debt collection agency in Jersey to deal with your claim.”
Mr Hardy subsequently purported to assign his cause of action against Swissport to Skyfall Collections Limited (Skyfall), a debt recovery agency in Jersey. Skyfall proceeded to issue proceedings in the Petty Debts Court against Swissport.
Swissport challenged the claim, arguing that the assigned was invalid and amounted to champerty – a prohibited practice whereby a third party supports litigation to profit. The Law Society of Jersey intervened, expressing concern about the implications for legal practice and public policy. The matter was transferred to the Royal Court due to its complexity and wider significance.
Two documents formed the basis of the assignment. The first document was a single page document titled ‘Assigned of Debt’ which stated:
“THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made the 21st day of March 2025 between Mr Grant Victor Hardy…(hereinafter called "the Assignor”) … and SkyFall Collections Limited…
WHEREAS Swissport…(hereinafter called "the Debtor/s") is indebted to the Assignor in the sum of £8,637.96 in respect of the wrongful denial of boarding by Swissport Staff at Jersey Airport on the 21st February 2025, resulting in lost holiday costs and associated costs (hereinafter called "the Debt") and the Assignor has agreed with the Assignee for the absolute sale of such debt to the Assignee, which is acknowledged upon the signing of this Deed,
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that the Assignor as beneficial owner herewith assigns the said sum of £8,637.96 is due and owing [sic] by the Debtor to the Assignor and all or any interest accrued and accruing to the Assignee absolutely to hold the full benefit and advantage thereof.”
The second document was Skyfall’s standard terms and conditions of assignment which provided that:
“1. The Assignor hereby absolutely transfers and assigns to SkyFall with full title guarantee and free from all encumbrances, all of its rights, benefits, interest and title to, in and under the Deed of Assignment, together with the benefit of all the rights and remedies, claims and demands in respect of the debt, or causes of action together with any proceeds of their enforcement. SkyFall hereby accepts the assignment of such rights, benefit, interest and title.
2. SkyFall will take such steps as It deems fit at its absolute discretion in order to obtain payment in respect of the debt or causes of action assigned.
3. The Assignor will provide Its reasonable cooperation with that process and shall use all best endeavours to provide such assistance or cooperation and to execute such further documentation as SkyFall may from time to time request.
4. SkyFall will pay to the Assignor the net proceeds of any recovery made, after deduction of any costs or expenses incurred by SkyFall in achieving the same.”
The Royal Court held that the claim was not a debt, despite being labelled as such, but rather a tortious cause of action for unliquidated damages. The fact that the claim was quantified did not alter its legal nature. The distinction was critical, as tortious claims are not generally assignable unless the assignee has a genuine interest in the subject matter.
The Court applied principles from English and Jersey law, which held that an assignment of a bare right to litigate unsupported by a legitimate interest is void as savouring champerty. In this case, Skyfall had no independent commercial or proprietary interest in the claim. It was not purchasing the claim for its own benefit, nor assuming any litigation risk. Instead, it was acting as a proxy for Mr Hardy, with proceeds remitted to him after costs. This arrangement failed the test of a valid assignment for a tortious action under Jersey law.
The Court also reaffirmed that champerty remains prohibited under Jersey customary law. Skyfall’s involvement was found to “plainly and obviously savour of champerty,” particularly where it lacked a legitimate interest, circumvented statutory protections such as rights of audience, and risked distorting the litigation process.
The proceedings were struck out with leave for Mr Hardy to reissue the claim in his own name within 28 days.
This judgment is a timely reaffirmation of the boundaries of lawful litigation conduct in Jersey. It highlights the tension between facilitating access to justice and preserving the integrity of legal proceedings. Whilst sympathetic to Mr Hardy’s predicament, the Court refused to allow procedural workarounds that undermine established legal norms.
The case also signals growing judicial concern about the role of debt collecting agencies and the need for Government to intervene to provide clarity as to how such agencies can operate.
In this case, the Royal Court had to consider the validity of an assignment of a tortious claim and whether it amounted to champerty.
The case arose from an incident at Jersey Airport in February 2025 when Grant Hardy, a Guernsey resident, was denied boarding at Jersey Airport due to Swissport’s interpretation of passport rules. He claimed £8,637.96 in losses. In March 2025, Mr Hardy contacted the Petty Debts Court to enquire about bringing a claim in Jersey noting that he resided outside of Jersey.
The Petty Debts Court said by email:
“You reside outside of Jersey and wish to bring a claim to the Petty Debts Court against either an individual or a company based on the island. To do so, you are required by law to provide an address for service in Jersey for yourself, which can be that of a friend or family member who resides on the island, or that of a Jersey lawyer who will represent you in the proceedings…
Alternatively, you could contact a debt collection agency in Jersey to deal with your claim.”
Mr Hardy subsequently purported to assign his cause of action against Swissport to Skyfall Collections Limited (Skyfall), a debt recovery agency in Jersey. Skyfall proceeded to issue proceedings in the Petty Debts Court against Swissport.
Swissport challenged the claim, arguing that the assigned was invalid and amounted to champerty – a prohibited practice whereby a third party supports litigation to profit. The Law Society of Jersey intervened, expressing concern about the implications for legal practice and public policy. The matter was transferred to the Royal Court due to its complexity and wider significance.
Two documents formed the basis of the assignment. The first document was a single page document titled ‘Assigned of Debt’ which stated:
“THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made the 21st day of March 2025 between Mr Grant Victor Hardy…(hereinafter called "the Assignor”) … and SkyFall Collections Limited…
WHEREAS Swissport…(hereinafter called "the Debtor/s") is indebted to the Assignor in the sum of £8,637.96 in respect of the wrongful denial of boarding by Swissport Staff at Jersey Airport on the 21st February 2025, resulting in lost holiday costs and associated costs (hereinafter called "the Debt") and the Assignor has agreed with the Assignee for the absolute sale of such debt to the Assignee, which is acknowledged upon the signing of this Deed,
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that the Assignor as beneficial owner herewith assigns the said sum of £8,637.96 is due and owing [sic] by the Debtor to the Assignor and all or any interest accrued and accruing to the Assignee absolutely to hold the full benefit and advantage thereof.”
The second document was Skyfall’s standard terms and conditions of assignment which provided that:
“1. The Assignor hereby absolutely transfers and assigns to SkyFall with full title guarantee and free from all encumbrances, all of its rights, benefits, interest and title to, in and under the Deed of Assignment, together with the benefit of all the rights and remedies, claims and demands in respect of the debt, or causes of action together with any proceeds of their enforcement. SkyFall hereby accepts the assignment of such rights, benefit, interest and title.
2. SkyFall will take such steps as It deems fit at its absolute discretion in order to obtain payment in respect of the debt or causes of action assigned.
3. The Assignor will provide Its reasonable cooperation with that process and shall use all best endeavours to provide such assistance or cooperation and to execute such further documentation as SkyFall may from time to time request.
4. SkyFall will pay to the Assignor the net proceeds of any recovery made, after deduction of any costs or expenses incurred by SkyFall in achieving the same.”
The Royal Court held that the claim was not a debt, despite being labelled as such, but rather a tortious cause of action for unliquidated damages. The fact that the claim was quantified did not alter its legal nature. The distinction was critical, as tortious claims are not generally assignable unless the assignee has a genuine interest in the subject matter.
The Court applied principles from English and Jersey law, which held that an assignment of a bare right to litigate unsupported by a legitimate interest is void as savouring champerty. In this case, Skyfall had no independent commercial or proprietary interest in the claim. It was not purchasing the claim for its own benefit, nor assuming any litigation risk. Instead, it was acting as a proxy for Mr Hardy, with proceeds remitted to him after costs. This arrangement failed the test of a valid assignment for a tortious action under Jersey law.
The Court also reaffirmed that champerty remains prohibited under Jersey customary law. Skyfall’s involvement was found to “plainly and obviously savour of champerty,” particularly where it lacked a legitimate interest, circumvented statutory protections such as rights of audience, and risked distorting the litigation process.
The proceedings were struck out with leave for Mr Hardy to reissue the claim in his own name within 28 days.
This judgment is a timely reaffirmation of the boundaries of lawful litigation conduct in Jersey. It highlights the tension between facilitating access to justice and preserving the integrity of legal proceedings. Whilst sympathetic to Mr Hardy’s predicament, the Court refused to allow procedural workarounds that undermine established legal norms.
The case also signals growing judicial concern about the role of debt collecting agencies and the need for Government to intervene to provide clarity as to how such agencies can operate.