Illegal Contracts Flashcards

1
Q

Illegality at Common Law - Contract to Commit Crime or Tort

Everet v Williams [1893]

A

Contract bw 2 highway men to share the spoils of their illegal activities held unenforceable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Illegality at Common Law - Contract to Commit Crime or Tort

Beresford v Royal Insurance Co [1938]

A

Deceased incurred significant debts and killed himself. Life insurance didn’t provide for suicide + was a crime at the time. Should it be interpreted as paying out for this or does that make it illegal?
Held the contract does not pay out in circs where insured committed suicide.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Illegality at Common Law - Contract to Commit Crime or Tort

Gray v Barr [1971] Wrongdoing not criminal

A

G suing B in negligence for death of her H. B cleared at criminal trial of murder and manslaughter
Trying to avoid her claim, he sought to rely on his house insurance that covered ‘home accidents’
Held the policy did not cover such: what occurred couldn’t be described as an accident and would
be contrary to public policy to allow him be indemnified for injuries from his own misconduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Common Law - Contracts Tending to Prejudice the Administration of Justice

Nolan v Shiels [1926]

A

Contracts to compromise a criminal proceeding are illegal as prevents justice for the public:
Agreement to pay £50 in return for promise to end criminal proceedings deemed illegal and unenf

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Common Law - Maintenance

Re Trepeca Mines [1963]:

A

Maintenance is “improperly stirring up litigation and strife by giving aid to one party to bring or defend a claim without just cause or excuse”. Must have just cause.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Common Law - Maintenance

Hill v Archbold [1967]:

A

A TU helped bring defamation actin on behalf of 2 members. Not maintenance: brought action in good faith.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Common Law - Maintenance

Martell v Consett Iron Co [1955]:

A

Assoc for Prevention of Pollution were allowed support action of
anglers against company polluting their waters. Held there was a sufficient common interest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Common Law - Champerty

Fraser v Buckle [1996]

A

F were ‘heir-locators’. B contracted with F where B agreed to pay a share of any inheritance it received as a result of F’s assistance. Contract deemed illegal as it was champertous.
Held the giving of assistance to one party by a person who has neither an interest in the action nor any other motive recognised by law is not allowed. Can encourage suppression of evidence, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Common Law - Champerty

Persona Digital Telephony v Minister for Public Enterprise [2017]

A

3rd party litigation funder from UK brought application for a declaration that 3rd party litigation funding was lawful in Ireland. Argued the case could simply not be brought w/o the funding.
HC refused. Appealed to SC: Denham confirmed champerty still illegal here: need Act to change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Common Law - Contracts Promoting Immorality

Pearce v Brooks [1866]

A

Owner of carriage leased it to a prostitute knowing she was going to use it for her work.
Held illegal and unenforceable. But morals change from generation to generation…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Common Law - Contracts Promoting Immorality

Upfill v Wright [1911]:

A

Contract to let flat to couple using it for adulterous purposes held illegal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Common Law - Contracts Promoting Immorality

Heglibston Est v Heyman [1977]:

A

But upheld a similar agreement to Upfill v Wright 60 years later!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Common Law - Contracts to Trade with Enemies of the State

Ross v Shaw [1917]:

A

WWI contract to buy yarn from Belgian mill. Under enemy occupa. Thus illegal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Common Law - Contracts that Breach Foreign Law

Foster v Driscoll [1929]

A

Held whiskey smuggling into the US during prohibition an illegal contract as breach US law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Common Law - Contracts to Defraud the Revenue

Tomlinson v Dick Evans U Drive [1978] UK

A

Employee given pay increase that both parties knew was paid from petty cash to avoid income tax
When he brought unfair dismissal claim, claim failed as it was founded on an illegal contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Common Law - Contracts to Defraud the Revenue

Lewis v Squash Ireland [1983]

A

L was MD of SI. Part of his salary was paid in ‘expenses’ minimising SI’s tax liability.
In action for unfair dismissal, held the contract was tainted by illegality.

17
Q

Common Law - Contracts to Defraud the Revenue

S.7 Unfair Dismissals Act 1993

A

alleviates the harshness of this rule: An employee is entitled to redress
under the legislation even where the contract is tainted with illegality.

18
Q

Common Law - Contracts that Attempt to Corrupt Public Officials

Lord Mayor of Dublin v Hayes [1876]

A

Payment to facilitate appt to public office held illegal.

19
Q

Illegality under Statute

Express illegality

A

This is where the statute expressly prohibits certain contracts