header-logo header-logo

Irreconcilable differences?

19 September 2014 / William McCormick KC , Faisel Sadiq
Issue: 7622 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
commercial_mccormick

William McCormick QC & Faisel Sadiq report on Patel v Mirza & the dangers of relying on illegal contracts

“As any hapless law student attempting to grapple with the concept of illegality knows, it is almost impossible to ascertain or articulate principled rules from the authorities relating to the recovery of money or other assets paid or transferred under illegal contracts. This court frankly recognised in Tribe v Tribe [1996] Ch 107, [1995] 4 All ER 236. (per Lord Justice Nourse at 121, and per Lord Justice Millett at 135) that the authorities are irreconcilable. The three different judgments in this case reflect some of the complexities of the problems raised by the illegality principle which are apparent from the authorities.” This opening paragraph of the partly dissenting judgment of Lady Justice Gloster in the recent case of Patel v Mirza [2014] EWCA Civ 1047, [2014] All ER (D) 279 (Jul) sets the unhappy scene that has confronted not only the hapless student but the hardened practitioner in this area of the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll