header-logo header-logo

31 July 2008 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7332 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Doing wrong for doing right

Is it time to revisit the illegality rule, asks Richard Scorer

In 2001 the Law Commission published a consultation paper entitled The Illegality Defence in Tort (Law Commission Consultation Paper no 160). The document contained a detailed analysis of the law applying to situations where the claimant in a tort action had himself acted in an illegal manner, and the extent to which such conduct should defeat the claim: a defence still best known to lawyers by the Latin maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (“No cause of action may be founded upon an immoral or illegal act”). The document advocated, entirely reasonably, that the application of the illegality defence should involve “a statutory discretion, structured around a number of factors”. This careful, scholarly and perfectly sensible analysis was immediately greeted by newspaper headlines claiming that the government now intended to force law-abiding citizens to compensate criminals who had been injured while committing offences such as burglary.

The Law Commission's misfortune, perhaps, was to have chosen the illegality defence for consideration

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll