195:, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault,
27:
568:, an employee who had obtained his position by concealing his epilepsy was held not to be entitled to claim compensation for future loss of earnings as a result of his employer's negligence, since his deception (resulting in a pecuniary advantage contrary to the Theft Act 1968) would prevent him from obtaining similar employment in future.
182:
The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the
142:
for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase
629:
favoured a public conscience approach which considers whether the general public would be outraged or view the court as indirectly encouraging a criminal act if they were to award damages. Dillon LJ meanwhile provided little practical guidance in his approach where the defence of illegality is
625:, Balcombe LJ of the Court of Appeal rationalised this approach, saying that it was impossible to decide the appropriate standard of care in cases where the parties were involved in illegality. However, the other two judges, although reached the same conclusion, took different approaches.
147:", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for
661:
in the Court of Appeal spoke of the court having to "weigh or balance the adverse consequences of granting relief against the adverse consequences of refusing relief". The plaintiff was ultimately successful in
614:
the defendant crashed a car in the course of getting away from the scene of a burglary, injuring the plaintiff. Ewbank J held that the court may not recognise a duty of care in such cases as a matter of
265:
189:. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise
437:
558:, agree to open a safe by means of explosives, and Alice so negligently handles the explosive charge as to injure Bob, Bob might find some difficulty in maintaining an action against Alice.
589:. On hearing the plaintiff trying to break in, he shot his gun through a hole in the shed, injuring the plaintiff. At first instance, the defendant attempted to raise the defence of
497:
601:
to have shot blindly at body height, without shouting a warning or shooting a warning shot into the air, and that the response was out of all proportion to the threat.
1300:
692:
165:(1725) where two Highwayman had a legal dispute over the proceeds of their robberies. The court declined to entertain the suit, and both litigants were later hanged.
898:
934:
1127:
950:
564:
489:
1009:
547:
831:
44:
1331:
1287:
1261:
1114:
1049:
261:(1824) 2 Bing 229, 252, Burroughs J, public policy is 'a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride it you never know where it will carry you'
183:
advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this;
964:
922:
1353:
1217:
1166:
1140:
1093:
594:
1309:
1235:
1071:
752:
91:
63:
288:
218:
110:
372:
226:
1322:
1084:
701:
519:
234:
70:
398:
section 18, "all contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void"
185:
144:
315:
AC 586, life insurance contract including cover for suicide illegal, and unenforceable because at the time suicide was illegal
824:
48:
781:
77:
1385:
721:
481:
357:
311:
148:
744:
687:
1395:
678:
upheld the basic rule of public policy that disallowed recovery of anything stemming from
Plaintiff's own wrongdoing.
401:
59:
453:
one must show "some proprietary right, whether in the nature of a trade connection or in the nature of trade secrets"
197:
728:
380:
222:
1 QB 267, Devlin J purpose of the statute on overloading ships did not prevent enforceability of a carriage contract
1106:
1017:
543:
473:
1344:
708:
445:
269:
Ch 591, 606, 'with a good man in the saddle, the unruly horse can be kept in control. It can jump over obstacles.'
238:
AC 484, Lord
Halsbury suggests the courts may no longer 'invent a new head of public policy', but this is doubtful
37:
1390:
817:
465:
1283:
1257:
1209:
1183:
1110:
797:
441:
AC 269, a garage agreed to accept all petrol from Esso exclusively, valid if protecting a legitimate interest
388:
1213:
1162:
1136:
541:, the principle would prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against (for example) a fellow criminal. In
1274:
674:
604:
The precise scope of the doctrine is not certain. In some cases, it seems that the illegality prevents a
257:
349:
327:
1187:
578:
303:
1153:
736:
573:
84:
1179:
911:
765:
610:
342:
295:
273:
211:
127:
670:, which allowed the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff did not need to rely on the illegality.
1036:
457:
410:
376:
1 WLR 828, tube banks on overloaded lorries breaching a regulation, knowledge of illegality matters
335:
1200:
621:
319:
281:
1248:
1230:
789:
654:
639:
450:
426:
422:
135:
848:
406:
161:
860:
532:
170:
131:
1002:
978:
758:
649:
395:
249:
1062:
884:
667:
512:
191:
175:
139:
1349:
1132:
1045:
968:
1379:
1089:
872:
773:
658:
616:
555:
430:
1327:
1305:
1279:
1205:
1158:
1067:
1253:
888:
605:
940:
253:(1866) LR 1 Ex 213, no compensation for a damaged brougham used for prostitution
26:
686:
The effect of illegality under
English law was most recently considered by the
630:
successful when a claimant's cause of action arises "directly ex turpi causa".
626:
598:
353:(1824) 2 Bing 314, contract to facilitate overthrow of a friendly government
740:
348, innocent person can recover damages after fraudulent misrepresentation
652:
where otherwise a claim would lie, again on grounds of public policy. In
809:
586:
582:
1370:
Illegal
Transactions: The Effect of Illegality on Contracts and Trusts
345:
sections 68-69, 87, entitlement to appeal to a court after arbitration
361:
2 KB 1, agreement to procure a knighthood contrary to public policy
593:
to avoid the claim; this failed and he appealed the decision. The
538:
331:(1870) LR 5 CP 744, agreement to obstruct bankruptcy proceedings
291:
section 1, abolishing illegality in breach of a promise to marry
813:
339:, parties can agree to have a dispute referred to an arbitrator
323:(1856) 1 H&C 73, contract to publish a libellous statement
299:
1 All ER 92, contract contrary to exchange control regulations
20:
266:
Enderby Town
Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Ltd
277:(1797) 3 Ves 368, promise to pay someone to be a mistress
307:(1945) 62 TLR 85, contract to defraud the Inland Revenue
498:
Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great
Britain) Ltd
438:
Esso
Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd
597:
dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that he was
178:
CJ set out the rationale for the illegality doctrine.
285:(1768) 2 Burr 2225, restraining someone from marriage
51:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
753:Hughes v Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society
1301:Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)
793:1 AC 340, recovery without relying on illegality
693:Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)
552:
451:contract restraining an employee from competing
180:
900:Enderby Town FC Ltd v Football Association Ltd
571:It is not absolute in effect. For example, in
289:Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
219:St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Ltd
825:
608:arising in the first place. For example, in
8:
1128:Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd
1041:
952:Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay
565:Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd
490:Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay
384:2 KB 128, ignorance of the law is no defence
373:Ashmore, Benson & CO Ltd v AV Dawson Ltd
227:Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd
1010:Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans
235:Janson v Driefontein Consolidated Mines Ltd
936:Esso Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd
832:
818:
810:
769:(1876) 1 QBD, repudiating illegal purpose
111:Learn how and when to remove this message
1028:
965:Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd
923:Nordenfelt v Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns Ltd
581:holder was sleeping in his shed with a
230:2 QB 374, Devlin LJ, purpose of statute
782:Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd
159:One of the earliest reported cases is
7:
358:Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd
312:Beresford v Royal Exchange Assurance
49:adding citations to reliable sources
745:AL Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd
14:
392:2 KB 716, linseed oil and license
1323:Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd
1085:Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd
852:(1725) noted in (1893) 9 LQR 197
702:Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd
520:Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd
25:
198:potior est conditio defendentis
145:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
36:needs additional citations for
729:Strongman (1945) Ltd v Sincock
449:1 AC 688, to sue to enforce a
381:Nash v Stevenson Transport Ltd
1:
1107:National Coal Board v England
722:English unjust enrichment law
544:National Coal Board v England
482:Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt
474:Wyatt v Kreglinger and Fernau
186:ex dolo malo non oritur actio
149:English unjust enrichment law
1345:Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger
709:Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger
688:United Kingdom Supreme Court
446:Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby
402:Financial Services Act 1986
60:"Illegality in English law"
1412:
1018:Illegal Contracts Act 1970
719:
637:
530:
466:Forster and Sons v Suggett
420:
209:
991:Illegality in English law
987:
975:
961:
947:
931:
919:
909:
895:
881:
869:
857:
845:
126:is a potential ground in
124:Illegality in English law
1350:[2010] EWCA 1472
1133:[2002] EWCA 1821
798:Euro-Diam Ltd v Bathurst
1090:[2000] EWCA 170
389:Re Mahmoud and Ispahani
174:(1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343
168:In another early case,
1328:[2009] UKHL 39
1308: (22 April 2015),
1306:[2015] UKSC 23
1280:[2009] UKHL 33
1206:[1990] EWCA 17
1159:[1995] EWCA 10
1068:[2014] UKSC 47
840:Sources for illegality
560:
203:
1254:[1993] UKHL 3
1188:High Court of Justice
409:section 335, and new
1386:English contract law
1356:(England and Wales).
1275:Gray v Thames Trains
1238:(England and Wales).
1220:(England and Wales).
1190:(England and Wales).
1169:(England and Wales).
1143:(England and Wales).
1096:(England and Wales).
912:Arbitration Act 1996
756:2 KB 482, not being
675:Gray v Thames Trains
343:Arbitration Act 1996
258:Richardson v Mellish
212:English contract law
128:English contract law
45:improve this article
411:Gambling Commission
350:De Wutz v Hendricks
328:Elliot v Richardson
1396:English trusts law
1372:(1999) Law Com 154
1249:Tinsley v Milligan
1231:Tinsley v Milligan
1040: (1856) 5
982:(1866) LR 1 Ex 213
914:sections 68-69, 87
790:Tinsley v Milligan
664:Tinsley v Milligan
655:Tinsley v Milligan
640:English trusts law
427:UK competition law
423:Restraint of trade
417:Restraint of trade
304:Miller v Karlinski
1154:Revill v Newberry
1013:, civil law maxim
997:
996:
864:(1775) 1 Cowp 341
849:Everet v Williams
777:Ch 107, Millet LJ
737:Shelley v Paddock
716:Unjust enrichment
619:. Similarly, in
574:Revill v Newberry
554:If two burglars,
506:Employment rights
407:Gambling Act 2005
162:Everet v Williams
121:
120:
113:
95:
1403:
1391:English tort law
1368:Law Commission,
1357:
1341:
1335:
1319:
1313:
1297:
1291:
1271:
1265:
1245:
1239:
1227:
1221:
1197:
1191:
1176:
1170:
1150:
1144:
1124:
1118:
1103:
1097:
1081:
1075:
1059:
1053:
1043:
1033:
953:
937:
901:
861:Holman v Johnson
834:
827:
820:
811:
644:The courts view
533:English tort law
469:(1918) 35 TLR 87
171:Holman v Johnson
116:
109:
105:
102:
96:
94:
53:
29:
21:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1376:
1375:
1365:
1360:
1354:Court of Appeal
1342:
1338:
1320:
1316:
1298:
1294:
1272:
1268:
1246:
1242:
1236:Court of Appeal
1228:
1224:
1218:Court of Appeal
1198:
1194:
1180:Ashton v Turner
1177:
1173:
1167:Court of Appeal
1151:
1147:
1141:Court of Appeal
1125:
1121:
1104:
1100:
1094:Court of Appeal
1082:
1078:
1060:
1056:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1003:In pari delicto
998:
993:
983:
979:Pearce v Brooks
971:
957:
951:
943:
935:
927:
915:
905:
899:
891:
877:
865:
853:
841:
838:
808:
766:Taylor v Bowers
759:in pari delicto
724:
718:
684:
642:
636:
611:Ashton v Turner
595:Court of Appeal
535:
529:
508:
433:
421:Main articles:
419:
396:Gaming Act 1845
368:
296:Bigos v Bousted
274:Franco v Bolton
250:Pearce v Brooks
245:
214:
208:
157:
117:
106:
100:
97:
54:
52:
42:
30:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1409:
1407:
1399:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1378:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1358:
1336:
1332:House of Lords
1314:
1292:
1288:House of Lords
1266:
1262:House of Lords
1240:
1222:
1192:
1171:
1145:
1119:
1115:House of Lords
1098:
1076:
1063:Hounga v Allen
1054:
1050:House of Lords
1027:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1006:
995:
994:
988:
985:
984:
976:
973:
972:
962:
959:
958:
948:
945:
944:
932:
929:
928:
920:
917:
916:
910:
907:
906:
896:
893:
892:
885:Hounga v Allen
882:
879:
878:
870:
867:
866:
858:
855:
854:
846:
843:
842:
839:
837:
836:
829:
822:
814:
807:
804:
803:
802:
794:
786:
778:
770:
762:
749:
741:
733:
720:Main article:
717:
714:
713:
712:
705:
683:
680:
668:House of Lords
635:
632:
537:In the law of
528:
525:
524:
523:
516:
513:Hounga v Allen
507:
504:
503:
502:
494:
486:
478:
470:
462:
454:
442:
418:
415:
414:
413:
404:
399:
393:
385:
377:
367:
364:
363:
362:
354:
346:
340:
332:
324:
316:
308:
300:
292:
286:
278:
270:
262:
254:
244:
241:
240:
239:
231:
223:
207:
204:
192:ex turpi causa
176:Lord Mansfield
156:
153:
140:UK company law
119:
118:
33:
31:
24:
16:Legal doctrine
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1408:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1310:Supreme Court
1307:
1303:
1302:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1072:Supreme Court
1069:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1039:
1038:
1037:Scott v Avery
1032:
1029:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1005:
1004:
1000:
999:
992:
986:
981:
980:
974:
970:
967:
966:
960:
955:
954:
946:
942:
939:
938:
930:
925:
924:
918:
913:
908:
903:
902:
894:
890:
887:
886:
880:
875:
874:
873:Patel v Mirza
868:
863:
862:
856:
851:
850:
844:
835:
830:
828:
823:
821:
816:
815:
812:
805:
800:
799:
795:
792:
791:
787:
784:
783:
779:
776:
775:
774:Tribe v Tribe
771:
768:
767:
763:
761:
760:
755:
754:
750:
747:
746:
742:
739:
738:
734:
731:
730:
726:
725:
723:
715:
711:
710:
706:
704:
703:
699:
698:
697:
695:
694:
689:
681:
679:
677:
676:
671:
669:
665:
660:
657:
656:
651:
647:
641:
633:
631:
628:
624:
623:
618:
617:public policy
613:
612:
607:
602:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
569:
567:
566:
559:
557:
556:Alice and Bob
551:
549:
546:
545:
540:
534:
526:
522:
521:
517:
515:
514:
510:
509:
505:
500:
499:
495:
492:
491:
487:
484:
483:
479:
476:
475:
471:
468:
467:
463:
460:
459:
458:Fitch v Dewes
455:
452:
448:
447:
443:
440:
439:
435:
434:
432:
431:UK labour law
428:
424:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
390:
386:
383:
382:
378:
375:
374:
370:
369:
365:
360:
359:
355:
352:
351:
347:
344:
341:
338:
337:
336:Scott v Avery
333:
330:
329:
325:
322:
321:
317:
314:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
290:
287:
284:
283:
279:
276:
275:
271:
268:
267:
263:
260:
259:
255:
252:
251:
247:
246:
243:Public policy
242:
237:
236:
232:
229:
228:
224:
221:
220:
216:
215:
213:
205:
202:
200:
199:
194:
193:
188:
187:
179:
177:
173:
172:
166:
164:
163:
154:
152:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
115:
112:
104:
93:
90:
86:
83:
79:
76:
72:
69:
65:
62: –
61:
57:
56:Find sources:
50:
46:
40:
39:
34:This article
32:
28:
23:
22:
19:
1369:
1343:
1339:
1321:
1317:
1299:
1295:
1273:
1269:
1247:
1243:
1229:
1225:
1201:Pitts v Hunt
1199:
1195:
1178:
1174:
1152:
1148:
1126:
1122:
1105:
1101:
1083:
1079:
1061:
1057:
1035:
1031:
1008:
1001:
990:
977:
963:
949:
933:
921:
897:
883:
871:
859:
847:
796:
788:
780:
772:
764:
757:
751:
748:EWCA Civ 402
743:
735:
727:
707:
700:
691:
685:
673:
672:
663:
653:
645:
643:
622:Pitts v Hunt
620:
609:
606:duty of care
603:
590:
572:
570:
563:
561:
553:
548:Lord Asquith
542:
536:
518:
511:
496:
488:
480:
472:
464:
456:
444:
436:
387:
379:
371:
356:
348:
334:
326:
320:Clay v Yates
318:
310:
302:
294:
282:Lowe v Peers
280:
272:
264:
256:
248:
233:
225:
217:
196:
190:
184:
181:
169:
167:
160:
158:
123:
122:
107:
101:January 2018
98:
88:
81:
74:
67:
55:
43:Please help
38:verification
35:
18:
659:Nicholls LJ
585:, to deter
577:an elderly
1380:Categories
1363:References
1052: (UK).
1046:10 ER 1121
969:EWCA Civ 2
956:1 WLR 1308
638:See also:
531:See also:
493:1 WLR 1308
210:See also:
71:newspapers
1234:Ch 310,
682:Companies
627:Beldam LJ
599:negligent
579:allotment
501:1 WLR 173
806:See also
732:2 QB 525
646:ex turpi
591:ex turpi
587:burglars
477:1 KB 793
461:2 AC 158
206:Contract
155:Overview
1212:24; 3
889:UKSC 47
876:UKSC 42
666:in the
650:defence
583:shotgun
366:Statute
85:scholar
1286:1339,
1214:All ER
1163:All ER
1137:All ER
941:UKHL 1
926:AC 535
904:Ch 591
801:1 QB 1
634:Trusts
550:said,
485:AC 535
429:, and
136:trusts
87:
80:
73:
66:
58:
1348:
1334:(UK).
1326:
1312:(UK).
1304:
1290:(UK).
1282:, 1
1278:
1264:(UK).
1260:340,
1256:, 1
1252:
1216:344,
1208:, 1
1204:
1186:137,
1165:291,
1161:, 1
1157:
1139:146,
1131:
1117:(UK).
1113:403,
1088:
1074:(UK).
1066:
1044:811,
1042:HLCas
1024:Notes
785:KB 65
648:as a
92:JSTOR
78:books
989:See
539:tort
527:Tort
132:tort
64:news
1135:,
1016:NZ
690:in
562:In
138:or
47:by
1382::
1352:,
1330:,
1284:AC
1258:AC
1210:QB
1184:QB
1111:AC
1092:,
1070:,
1048:,
696:.
425:,
151:.
134:,
130:,
833:e
826:t
819:v
201:.
143:"
114:)
108:(
103:)
99:(
89:·
82:·
75:·
68:·
41:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
