News 4
Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?
Published by a LexisNexis PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Practice notesWas the claimant involved in an illegal activity?
Published by a LexisNexis PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Practice notesIf this question is answered in the affirmative, the defendant may have a complete defence to any claim brought against them. This defence is commonly known as ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ which is usually shortened to ‘ex turpi causa’.
In practice, the defence is relatively unusual.
The precise ambit of the defence is uncertain. However, the following guidelines should be considered.
claimant’s responsibility has been diminished but not removed
The cases of Clunis and Gray involved claimants who were guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. In Clunis, the Court of Appeal found that the claimant’s plea of diminished responsibility accepted that their mental responsibility was substantially impaired but did not remove liability for their criminal act and therefore they had to be taken to have known what they were doing and that it was wrong. In Gray, the House of Lords held that the claimant’s claim was barred by the defence of illegality because the damages sought resulted from the sentence imposed by the criminal
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it,
sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.
Related documents:
- Catching all the legal issues with Pokémon GO
- Ex turpi causa and criminal joint enterprise (Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the depend...
- Fraudulent misrepresentation—insurance company claims settlement deception
- Supreme Court considers the illegality defence in a personal injury claim (Henderson v Dorset Health...
Practice notes 4
Precedents 2
Q&As 2