From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1998] QB 781; [1998] 2 WLR. 893; [1998] 3 All ER 65. A solicitor acted for his wife in a county court case, on the understanding that he would not charge her if she lost the case. In the event, she did win the case, but the losing side refused to pay the solicitor's costs. They argued that the agreement between the solictor and his wife was unenforceable for Champerty; so the solicitor could not recover costs from his wife, so she had no need to recover from them.

Despite the ruling in Aratra potato v taylor joynson garrett (1995), the Court of Appeal decided that the time had come to remove the stigma of champerty from Conditional fee cases where a lawyer represented a deserving client on a 'no win, no fee' basis. This move was broadly in keeping with the spirit of the Courts and Legal Services Act (1990) and, in fact, went beyond the ranges of action that were validly supported by the 1995 statutory conditional fee arrangements. The Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations (2000) puts such 'Thai Trading Arrangments' on a statutory footing, so lawyers can now offer such arrangements provided they agree with the statutory formalities.