Charitable Crowdfunding and the Boundaries of Maintenance and Champerty: Campbell v O'Doherty [2025] IEHC 223

Introduction

Campbell v O'Doherty [2025] IEHC 223 is a High Court decision delivered by Mr Justice Nolan on 29 April 2025. The action arises from a tragic family bereavement and allegations that a journalist, trading as “The Irish Light,” misused the deceased’s image and promoted a false claim regarding his death and the COVID-19 vaccine. The defendant applied to strike out the proceedings under Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or the court’s inherent jurisdiction, on grounds including maintenance and champerty (due to the plaintiff’s use of a GoFundMe page), vexatiousness, and infringement of press freedoms.

Key issues:

Whether crowdfunding via GoFundMe amounts to unlawful maintenance or champerty.
Whether the plaintiff’s claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is bound to fail.
The interplay between constitutional freedoms of expression and the plaintiff’s right to privacy.

Summary of the Judgment

The court refused the defendant’s motion to strike out. It held that:

The plaintiff’s GoFundMe fundraising does not constitute champerty, as no donor stood to gain financially.
The presumption of maintenance requires “interference in litigation without just cause or legitimate interest,” and the evidence established charitable motives for the donations.
At this preliminary stage, the court could not determine contested facts on affidavit alone; the plaintiff’s cause of action—privacy infringement, torts and constitutional breaches—was “at least arguable.”
The defendant’s constitutional freedom of speech and arguments about public inquests do not, on their own, render the entire claim frivolous or bound to fail.

Consequently, the action will proceed to full trial, where evidence can be tested by examination and cross-examination.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Reynell v Sprye (1852) 42 ER 708 – early authority condemning maintenance/champerty as against public policy.
Fraser v Buckle [1994] 1 IR 1 – definitions of maintenance (“assistance without lawful motive”) and champerty (“maintenance for share of proceeds”).
In Re Trepca Mines Ltd (No.2) [1963] Ch 199 – Lord Denning’s discussion of champerty’s potential for abuse.
C Martel v Consett Iron Co Ltd [1955] Ch 199 – third-party indemnity by a body with common interest was held lawful.
O’Keefe v Scales [1998] 1 IR 290 – emphasises constitutional right of access to courts and high onus on striking out for maintenance.
Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise [2017] IESC 27 – examined modern litigation funding and public policy; maintained the requirement of “just cause.”
SPV Osus Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd [2018] IESC 44 – defined maintenance as “support without legitimate interest.”
Aer Rianta cpt v Ryanair Ltd [2004] IESC 23 – on striking out under Order 19 Rule 28; jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly.
Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306 and Lopes v Minister for Justice [2014] 2 IR 30 – tests for “bound to fail” and necessity of clear cases.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two strands:

Order 19 Rule 28 jurisdiction: A strike-out requires that the claim discloses no cause of action, is frivolous/vexatious, or is bound to fail (Aer Rianta; Barry; Lopes). The defendant must establish that the plaintiff cannot succeed on the pleaded case without a full trial. Here, privacy, emotional distress, constitutional and harassment claims were “at least arguable” on pleadings.
Maintenance and Champerty: Champerty (funding for profit) clearly did not arise: donors gained no share. Maintenance requires “assistance in litigation by a person without interest or lawful motive” (Fraser). The evidence—GoFundMe page, donor profiles, trustee’s affidavit—indicated charitable motives and community support. In the absence of proof of ulterior motives or financial interest, the plaintiff’s right of access to courts prevails (O’Keefe).

The defendant’s freedom-of-speech submissions and coronial-inquest arguments were recognized as potential defenses but insufficient for strike-out at this stage.

Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Charitable crowdfunding for litigation expenses is not ipso facto unlawful maintenance or champerty.
Applicants to dismiss proceedings for third-party funding face a high evidential threshold, preserving access to justice.
Crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe can facilitate claims by individuals lacking resources without fear of strike-out challenges.
Future litigants will need clear evidence of illicit motive or profit-seeking to invoke maintenance/champerty.

The ruling balances the need to deter exploitative funding with the constitutional principle that justice must remain accessible.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Maintenance: Financial assistance in someone else’s lawsuit by a person who has no legitimate interest or permitted reason.
Champerty: A form of maintenance where the funder takes a share of any award as their reward.
Order 19 Rule 28: Procedure to strike pleadings if they disclose no cause of action, are frivolous/vexatious, or are bound to fail.
Strike-out jurisdiction: Courts exercise caution and require clear demonstration that no plausible case remains.
Access to justice: Constitutional right permitting individuals to bring legitimate legal claims, even if funded by others.

Conclusion

Campbell v O'Doherty establishes that crowdfunding litigation costs for charitable reasons does not violate the ancient doctrines of maintenance or champerty, and cannot justify the premature dismissal of an arguable cause of action. The decision reaffirms the principle that access to the courts must be preserved for those of limited means, subject only to rigorous proof of illicit funding motives. It serves as a landmark for modern litigation funding, reconciling public-policy concerns with constitutional guarantees of fair access to justice.