³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related checklists about Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Glossary—Latin legal terms

Glossary—Latin legal terms Despite attempts in recent years to simplify the language used in legal cases, there are still a number of Latin phrases commonly used in personal injury claims. The following Latin phrases are listed in alphabetical order: Latin term Definition Meaning Acta iure imperii Legal acts of public nature Liability of the state for actions or omissions in the exercise of state authority Bona Fide In good faith A Bona Fide agreement is one entered into without intent to deceive Caveat Take care/caution A legal notice to the court to prevent another party taking action without informing the person who gave the notice Compos Mentis Of sound mind Legally fit to conduct the claim De Facto In fact As a matter of fact Ex Gratia As a matter of favour An ex gratia payment is made without any legal or contractual obligation to do so Ex Parte By a party An ex parte application is made to the court by one party in the absence or without...

View the related practice notes about Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?

If 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 removedThe 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 court and/or the claimant’s...

Defences in road traffic accidents

NOTE: Major changes to the Highway Code came into force on 29 January 2022. The concept of a 'hierarchy of road users' was introduced to give vulnerable road users a greater degree of clarity over who has right of way at junctions. For further details, see News Analysis: A Highway Code for the future—visionary changes or increased risks? and The Highway Code—8 key changes from 29th January 2022.Unavoidable accidentA defendant may be able to avoid liability if they can prove that they could not have avoided the accident.Every case turns on its own facts but the following issues may be relevant:•the speed the vehicle was travelling (not necessarily just in relation to the speed limit but also with regard to the road, weather and traffic conditions)•was the defendant keeping a proper lookout•did the claimant pedestrian move suddenly or unexpectedly into the vehicle’s path•did the defendant driver exercise reasonable care•was the defendant driver able to take evasive action, eg to slow down, swerve or stopA defendant may be able to escape...

View the related q&as about Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Can a party to a bigamous marriage claim financial relief within proceedings for a decree of nullity in relation to that marriage?

Can a party to a bigamous marriage claim financial relief within proceedings for a decree of nullity in relation to that marriage? Bigamy is forbidden by both civil and criminal law. A marriage will be declared null and void where a spouse was, at the time of the marriage, a party to a prior valid and subsisting marriage to another person. See Practice Notes: • Void and voidable marriages • The grounds on which a marriage is void However, a party to a bigamous marriage is not precluded from claiming financial relief within proceedings for a decree of nullity, although the act of bigamy may be taken into account within the court's exercise of discretion as to the financial relief that would be fair in the circumstances. See

Is there any case law for a collision between a truck parked legally in a loading bay and another non-loading vehicle parked improperly in the loading zone, where the loader reversed into the non-loader?

Is there any case law for a collision between a truck parked legally in a loading bay and another non-loading vehicle parked improperly in the loading zone, where the loader reversed into the non-loader? In answering this Q&A, we have assumed an injury was caused by the impact of the two vehicles in the loading bay. We have been unable to find any case law on the specific point raised in this Q&A; however, the following information from the Lexis+ UK Practical Guidance Personal Injury module may be useful when considering this question. Ex turpi causa In the scenario outlined, it is possible that the claimant’s parking in a loading bay may constitute an illegal activity. If the claimant was involved in an illegal activity which is closely connected to the claimant’s own illegal conduct, the defendant may have a complete defence to any claim brought against them (Gray v Thames Trains). This defence is commonly known as ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio', 'no cause of...

View the related News about Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

Attempting to strike out a liquidators’ breach of duty claim (Re Mobigo Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The judgment of Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC) Judge Mullen in Re Mobigo Ltd deals with an unsuccessful attempt to strike out an application for misfeasance brought by one of the joint liquidators of Mobigo Ltd. Written by Edward Saunders, partner, and Stephen Baister, consultant, at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Secret profits—confiscation versus the constructive trust (CPS v Aquila)

Corporate Crime analysis: In Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd, two former directors of VTL induced clients to submit false claims for tax relief. They were convicted of cheating the public revenue; confiscation orders were made against them which included what was left of the proceeds of their crime. VTL (which was not prosecuted) went into liquidation; its rights were assigned to Aquila which in civil proceedings for breach of fiduciary duty claimed that the secret profits were held by the directors on constructive trust for VTL. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) intervened, asserting that the operation of the confiscation orders to recover the proceeds of the fraud should take precedence. The Supreme Court disagreed. It unanimously decided that Aquila’s right to recover the secret profits made by VTL’s directors on the basis of breach of fiduciary duty took precedence over the enforcement of the confiscation orders. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) regime was not generally designed to interfere with third party property rights (except tainted...