header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 July 2011 / Mark Sefton , Oliver Radley-Gardner
Issue: 7473 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

In the wrong

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

One cannot rely upon one’s own wrong in the courtroom, observe Oliver Radley-Gardner & Mark Sefton

In the well known case of Interfoto Picture Library v. Stiletto [1989] QB 433, [1988] 1 All ER 348, Bingham LJ explained that, rather than developing an overriding general concept of good faith, the English law has adopted “piecemeal solutions to demonstrated problems of unfairness” without recourse to any more general concept. This article considers one of those solutions, namely the principle that a contracting party should not be permitted to rely upon his own wrong to take a benefit under his contract. This principle has been considered in a series of recent cases, frequently involving development agreements, contracts for the disposition of interests in land, and leases.

The New Zealand Shipping case

In New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France [1919] AC 1, [1918-19] All ER Rep 552 the House of Lords was concerned with a contract by a French company, the vendors, to build a steamboat

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll