Al Hassan-Daniel and another v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – WLR Daily

December 17, 2010, 3:18 am

≫ Next: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Al Hassan-Daniel and another v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2010] EWCA Civ 1443; [2010] WLR (D) 331

“There were perceptible and sound policy reasons why the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not form part of the Strasbourg jurisprudence, save when the matter came to just satisfaction. To introduce it into a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 would be to create a barrier which citizens of other member states did not face.”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

---

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

March 31, 2011, 2:46 am

≫ Next: Professional negligence litigation rise down to the unscrupulous few – Law Society’s Gazette

≪ Previous: Al Hassan-Daniel and another v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2010] EWHC 730 (Pat); [2011] WLR (D) 111

“The court would not award compensation under a cross-undertaking for the loss sustained by an unlawful business or where the beneficiary of the cross-undertaking had to rely to a substantial extent upon his own illegality in order to establish the loss, provided the unlawfulness was sufficiently serious to engage the ex turpi causa rule. What was sufficiently serious depended on the circumstances of the case, and in particular the state of knowledge of the claimant under the cross-undertaking at the relevant time; but the claimant’s conduct had to be assessed having regard to the fact that the claim was for compensation under a cross-undertaking.”

WLR Daily, 29th March 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Professional negligence litigation rise down to the unscrupulous few – Law Society’s Gazette

May 12, 2011, 2:27 am

≫ Next: Delaney v Pickett and another – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

$

0

0

“Economically speaking, the law is generally thought to be a counter-cyclical profession.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 12th May 2011

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Delaney v Pickett and another – WLR Daily

January 5, 2012, 2:19 am

≫ Next: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Professional negligence litigation rise down to the unscrupulous few – Law Society’s Gazette

$

0

0

Delaney v Pickett and another; [2011] EWCA Civ 1532;  [2011] WLR (D)  390

“In looking to the possible application of the defence of ‘ex turpi’ in a claim of negligence arising out of a road traffic accident it could be crucial to ask whether the injury in issue was truly a consequence of the claimant’s unlawful act or whether it was a consequence of the unlawful act only in the sense that it would not have happened if the claimant had not been committing an unlawful act. In other words, could one say that, although the damage would not have happened but for the tortious conduct of the defendant, it was caused by the criminal act of the claimant; or was the position, rather, that, although the damage would not have happened without the criminal act of the claimant, it was caused by the tortious act of the defendant ?.”

WLR Daily, 21st December 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

May 9, 2012, 1:52 am

≫ Next: Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street

≪ Previous: Delaney v Pickett and another – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2012] EWCA Civ 593; [2012] WLR (D) 138

“The court was able to take into account a wide range of considerations in order to ensure that the ex turpi causa defence only applied where it was a just and proportionate response to the illegality in question. Although a party claiming compensation on a cross-undertaking in damages for lost sales of products the manufacture of which infringed a foreign patent was relying on an unlawful act sufficiently causative of its claim to engage the defence in principle, the defence did not apply where the party had believed reasonably and in good faith that the patent was invalid, and the illegality was recognised by making a deduction in the assessment of damages for the amount which the foreign court would have awarded in patent infringement proceedings.”

WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street

July 2, 2012, 4:10 am

≫ Next: Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter (PDF)

Thirty Nine Essex Street, June 2012

Source: www.39essex.com

Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

May 20, 2013, 3:34 am

≫ Next: Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

≪ Previous: Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street

$

0

0

Joyce v O’Brien and another [2013] EWCA Civ 546; [2013] WLR (D) 182

“Where the character of a joint criminal enterprise was such that it was foreseeable that a party or parties might be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialised, the harm could properly be said to have been caused by the criminal act of the party suffering it even if it resulted from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the criminal enterprise. Therefore, in such circumstances the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would provide the negligent party with a defence to a claim for negligence by the injured party.”

WLR Daily, 17th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

June 28, 2013, 2:25 am

≫ Next: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

$

0

0

“The press would have us believe that criminals can do what they like and then merrily sue all and sundry for the unfortunate consequences of those actions. Sadly for tabloid journalists this is simply not true as the Court of Appeal recently remind us in Joyce v O’Brien [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 202 (May). The case is a useful reminder of the rule often shortened to “ex turpi”, namely that the court will not allow a party to profit from a loss arising from that party’s own criminal or immoral activity.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 27th June 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

---

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

October 31, 2014, 5:43 am

≫ Next: Les Laboratoires Servier and another (Appellants) v Apotex Inc and Others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

≪ Previous: Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

$

0

0

Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2014] UKSC 55; [2014] WLR (D) 452

‘Although acts which constituted “turpitude” for the purposes of giving rise to the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio were not confined to criminal acts but included quasi criminal acts which engaged the public interest, civil wrongs which offended against private and not public interests did not give rise to the defence. Infringements of patent gave rise to private rights of a character no different from rights under contract or tort and there was no public policy which would give rise to a defence of ex turpi causa.’

WLR Daily, 29th October 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Les Laboratoires Servier and another (Appellants) v Apotex Inc and Others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

November 4, 2014, 3:54 am

≫ Next: Criminal Acts and Compensation – Zenith PI Blog

≪ Previous: Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Les Laboratoires Servier and another (Appellants) v Apotex Inc and Others (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 55 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 29th October 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Criminal Acts and Compensation – Zenith PI Blog

January 16, 2015, 2:03 am

≫ Next: Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) (Revenue and Customs Commissioners intervening) – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Les Laboratoires Servier and another (Appellants) v Apotex Inc and Others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

$

0

0

‘The recent case of AB v Chief Constable of X Constabulary provided the High Court with an opportunity to review the doctrine of ex turpi causa and its application in personal injury cases.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 15th January 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) (Revenue and Customs Commissioners intervening) – WLR Daily

April 30, 2015, 2:24 am

≫ Next: McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others – WLR Daily

≪ Previous: Criminal Acts and Compensation – Zenith PI Blog

$

0

0

Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) (Revenue and Customs Commissioners intervening) [2015] UKSC 23; [2015] WLR (D) 182

‘The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not available to company directors in a claim by the company for conspiracy to defraud the company because the directors’ conduct cannot be attributed to the company in the context of its claim for a breach of the directors’ duties. Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra territorial effect and can be invoked against the directors.’

WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others – WLR Daily

April 30, 2015, 2:26 am

≫ Next: Jetivia SA and another (Appellants) v Bilta (UK) Limited and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

≪ Previous: Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) (Revenue and Customs Commissioners intervening) – WLR Daily

$

0

0

McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others [2015] EWCA Civ 380; [2015] WLR (D) 183

‘Where a claimant’s injury had two separate causes, one of which was his own criminal conduct in a joint enterprise with another, amounting to turpitude for the purposes of the defence of ex turpi causa, and one of which was a third party’s negligence, the relationship between the claimant’s turpitude and his negligence claim against the third party was not such as to debar his claim against the defendant in reliance on the principle of ex turpi causa. The correct approach of the court in such cases was to give effect to both causes of the injury by allowing the claimant to claim in negligence against the third party but, if negligence was established, by reducing any recoverable damages in accordance with the principles of contributory negligence so as to reflect the claimant’s own fault and responsibility for the injury.’

WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Jetivia SA and another (Appellants) v Bilta (UK) Limited and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

April 30, 2015, 3:32 am

≫ Next: Participation in an illegal joint enterprise is not a bar to recovery in a claim for personal injury – Zenith PI Blog

≪ Previous: McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others – WLR Daily

$

0

0

Jetivia SA and another (Appellants) v Bilta (UK) Limited and others (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 23 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 22nd April 2015

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Participation in an illegal joint enterprise is not a bar to recovery in a claim for personal injury – Zenith PI Blog

May 11, 2015, 3:31 am

≫ Next: Ee Turpi Causa and the MIB – Zenith PI Blog

≪ Previous: Jetivia SA and another (Appellants) v Bilta (UK) Limited and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

$

0

0

‘Personal injury arises out of criminal acts as well as legal ones. The good news is this is not a bar to recovery.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 8th May 2015

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

---

Ee Turpi Causa and the MIB – Zenith PI Blog

January 21, 2016, 2:21 am

≫ Next: Dangerous driving, joint criminal enterprise and ex turpi causa defence: is mens rea made out? – Zenith PI

≪ Previous: Participation in an illegal joint enterprise is not a bar to recovery in a claim for personal injury – Zenith PI Blog

$

0

0

‘Smith appealed against the decision of the MIB not to meet his personal injury claim when it was discovered that the First Defendant was an uninsured driver.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 20th January 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Dangerous driving, joint criminal enterprise and ex turpi causa defence: is mens rea made out? – Zenith PI

November 27, 2018, 2:58 am

≫ Next: Dangerous Driving, Joint Criminal Enterprise and Ex Turpi Causa Defence: is Mens Rea made out? – Zenith Chambers

≪ Previous: Ee Turpi Causa and the MIB – Zenith PI Blog

$

0

0

‘In the case of Kelly Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the dependants of Ian Hill (Deceased)) v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) the High Court considered (heard on 14.11.2018) issues of joint criminal enterprise in the context of the ex turpi causadefence.’

Full Story

Zenith PI, 26th November 2018

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Dangerous Driving, Joint Criminal Enterprise and Ex Turpi Causa Defence: is Mens Rea made out? – Zenith Chambers

December 14, 2018, 8:17 am

≫ Next: Mental health, clinical negligence and the illegality defence – UK Human Rights Law Blog

≪ Previous: Dangerous driving, joint criminal enterprise and ex turpi causa defence: is mens rea made out? – Zenith PI

$

0

0

‘In the case of Kelly Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the dependants of Ian Hill (Deceased)) v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) the High Court considered (heard on 14.11.2018) issues of joint criminal enterprise in the context of the ex turpi causa defence.’

Full Story

Zenith Chambers, 26th November 2018

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Mental health, clinical negligence and the illegality defence – UK Human Rights Law Blog

November 6, 2020, 2:51 am

≪ Previous: Dangerous Driving, Joint Criminal Enterprise and Ex Turpi Causa Defence: is Mens Rea made out? – Zenith Chambers

$

0

0

‘In Ecila Henderson v. Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust Foundation [2020] UKSC 43 the Supreme Court has revisited the defence of illegality (“ex turpi causa”) in the context of a claim for clinical negligence.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Law Blog, 3rd November 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com