Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

Question 1

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd

Answer 1

D - train crash (D1’s breach)- PTSD - one day killed someone - convicted of manslaughter by way of DR - sued for loss of earnings as a result of criminal conviction.

EXAMPLE OF ILLEGALITY DEFENCE SUCCEEDING FOR A GROUP OF REASONS - SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL SET RATIONAL FOR EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO.

Wasn’t an example of reliance on criminal act (Tinsley v Milligan.)
Invoked ideas of public policy and inextricable link b. criminal act and claim.

Public policy - illogical that crim law should hold someone liable and then civil law to attribute liability to someone else.

Question 2

Holman v Johnson [1775]

Answer 2

Historical authority for ex turpi causa defence.

Question 3

Ashton v Turner

Answer 3

FOR PUBLIC POLICY:

No DoC owed between participants in the commission of a crime.

Question 4

Tinsley v Milligan

Answer 4

Authority that the illegality defence applies where D RELIES ON THE ILLEGALITY.

HOWEVER: reliance principle doubted in Gray v Thames Trains - should not be applied too narrowly. - Tests of public policy and inextricable link now favoured.

Question 5

Clunis v Camden & Islington HA

Answer 5

PUBLIC POLICY - can’t rely on illegality unless DO NOT KNOW THE NATURE OR QUALITY OF THE CRIMINAL ACT OR THAT IT WAS WRONG.

Question 6

Delaney v Pickett

Answer 6

Passenger in D’s car- crashed - serious injury to C - upon rescue - large proportion of cannabis found on both of them.
Both C + D - possible PWITS

@ trial - defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio succeeded.
C of A reversed - ‘NO RELEVANT NEXUS BETWEEN THE ILLEGALITY UPON WHICH C WAS ENGAGED AND THE TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF D1”

Not injured in the course of the criminal activity - just neg. driving.

Question 7

Joyce v O’Brien

Answer 7

Distinguished from Delaney v Pickett

Where there is a joint criminal enterprise - with one D subjected to greater risks of harm, and risk materialises - injury can be said to be CAUSED by claimant’s illegal activities, even if it was directly caused by D’s negligent/intentional acts.

Ex turpi causa applies/

Question 8

Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC

Answer 8

Key SC judgment:

Discrimination (not neg) case - illegal immigrant working as au pair - kicked out by abusive D.
Claimed for unfair dismissal.
C of A rejected - applied illegality defence.

SC ALLOWED - MUST ASK: WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC POLICY REASONS FOR FOUNDING THE DEFENCE?…AND IS THERE ANOTHER ASPECT OF PUBLIC POLICY TO WHICH THE DEFENCE WOULD RUN COUNTER???

I.E. Weighing up pros and cons of public policy in whether or not defence should be applied.