Ltd vs Smt. Surinder Kaur Scintronix Corp Ltd Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police Pitts v Hunt  3 All ER 5.
|Published (Last):||1 November 2010|
|PDF File Size:||9.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ltd vs Smt. Surinder Kaur Scintronix Corp Ltd Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police Pitts v Hunt  3 All ER 5. Walsh v. Trebilcock, 23 S. Hall v. Hebert,  2 S. Holman v Johnson 1 Cowp Ashton v Turner  QB March 18 Pitts v Hunt  3 All ER Oriental Insurance CO. Ho Kang Peng vs. Vellino v. Depending on the verdict, either party can be found guilty or innocent.
In order to avoid receiving a guilty verdict, many tactics have been used in court, whether it is proving themselves right or contradicting the opposite side.
However, it is also possible to debilitate the opposite side by ripping off the right of the opponent in certain situations. In court, a doctrine called contributory negligence can defend the one who is sued in court to reduce the compensation one has to pay. The two doctrines above each has different purposes and therefore also their nature differs. Depending on which principle shows effect in court, the flow of the court and decision made in the court changes.
This paper explores two different doctrine, ex trupi causa and contributory negligence. Firstly, this paper explains what ex trupi causa is, and explore how it is conducted in courts in India. Then this paper explains what contributory negligence is, and use cases as examples to compare and contrast the two different principles. Lastly, the conclusion summarizes the findings in the project. The first chapter talks about what ex turpi causa is and how it developed through time.
The second chapter deals with how ex turpi causa is applied to cases. The third chapter explains what contributory negligence is and how it is applied to cases. The fourth chapter analyses both principles and investigate cases which involves two doctrines to compare and contrast the two principles.
Finally, the conclusion summarises the finding of the project. The paper seeks to ascertain the jurisprudence behind the development of Ex Turpi Causa with a special focus on how the defence has been employed in India.
The objective of the paper is to understand the necessity behind the development of the legal doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa, through the study of cases where plaintiff contributed substantially to his own damage. An attempt has been made to understand the jurisprudence involved behind the decisions delivered in Indian cases and the assumptions the courts rely upon in order to furnish a fair judgement.
The limitations of the project are that the researcher could not find sufficient cases related to Ex Turpi Causa in Indian context and hence had to rely upon cases of England and other countries. Further there is no codified and explicit law relating to Ex Turpi Causa neither in India. Hence, the researcher had to rely completely upon case laws of foreign countries especially England.
What is Ex Turpi Causa and how did it develop? What led to the formulation of the illegality defence and how was it treated by the judiciary in common law? How has Ex Turpi Causa been applied to raw cases? What is Contributory Negligence? How is Contributory Negligence applied to cases?
Chapter 1 deals with illegality as a defence to negligence in common law. Chapter 2 deals with the concept and application of ex turpi causa and the initial cases associated with it. Chapter 3 deals with the concept of contributory negligence and related cases. Chapter 4 deals with the difference between ex turpi causa and contributory negligence using cases. Although illegality is recognized as a good defence against the tort of negligence, it has many shortcomings.
One of the shortcomings is uncertainty in its approach to different cases. Courts in different countries, therefore, have imposed limitation on it and have also called for changes and reforms to make its approach clearer and more certain. It states that if plaintiff is not entitled to legal remedy if it arises with the illegal acts on the part of the plaintiff.
In other words, if plaintiff is the wrongdoer or if plaintiff is involved in the wrongdoing, he is not entitled to legal remedy. There have been cases where the defence of illegality is not limited to only criminal acts.
Kirkham was an alcoholic and suicidal. One day, he attempted suicide but failed. He was admitted to a hospital but discharged himself to return home and drink alcohol.
When he returned home, his wife prevented him from drinking for which he became violent. The wife called the police to stop him from his feats of anger. She informed the police of his alcohol consumption and suicide attempts.
The police, after being informed, agreed to take him in custody for his own personal safety. However, the police failed to inform the prison authorities of his suicidal tendencies. Kirkham committed suicide two days after he was admitted in the prison. His wife sued the police on the ground the police were negligent in performing their duty i.
The Police, then, took the defence of Ex Turpi Causa. The Police succeeded in their case. ILLEGALITY: BASIS The basis of the defence or in other words, the reason as to why a person injured by negligence of another is not allowed to sue that negligent person can be two — One, allowing the plaintiff to benefit from his wrongful act would cause an outrage to the conscience of public; it would be equal to rewarding a criminal for his crime which would bring the law to disgrace.
Two, the defence safeguards the integrity of the legal system by not allowing a plaintiff to benefit from his wrongdoings. In Pitts v Hunt4, two underaged boys were drinking alcohol and riding a motorcycle recklessly. The driver lost control of his vehicle and an accident occurred as a result of which the driver or the defendant was killed.
The pillion suffered severe injury. The pillion sued the driver on the ground that the driver was negligent while riding the motorcycle and he owed a duty of care towards the pillion. The claim failed because of defence of illegality. The action against the plaintiff failed because it arose directly from ex turpi causa and to allow the claim would be against the public policy and conscience of public.
It applies if, in all the circumstances, it would be an affront to the public conscience to grant the relief which he seeks because the courts would thereby appear to assist or encourage the plaintiff in his illegal conduct or to encourage others in similar acts.
Lord Hoffman: "The maxim ex turpi causa expresses not so much a principle as a policy. Furthermore, that policy is not based upon a single justification but on a group of reasons, which vary in different situations". Justice Lindley: "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. This old and well-known legal maxim is founded on good sense, and expresses a clear and well recognized legal principle which is not confined to indictable offences. No court ought to enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, if the illegality is duly brought to the notice of the court, and if the person invoking the aid of the court is himself implicated in the illegality.
It matters not whether the defendant has pleaded the illegality or whether he has not. If the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves the illegality the court ought not to assist him. Justice Gibbs: "The principle underlying ex turpi causa is not limited to circumstances where the injuries are sustained during the course of a joint criminal enterprise.
It is available wherever the conduct of the plaintiff giving rise to the claim is so tainted with criminality or culpable immorality that as a matter of public policy the court will not assist the plaintiff to recover. It is no longer the law in British Columbia that the defence is confined to cases of joint criminal enterprise or applies only in contract. Ex Turpi Cause is also known as illegality defence because a defendant cannot rely on the illegal act or conduct to pursue an action under law against the other person.
Therefore, for example, while planting a bomb in a public park, one of the miscreants is negligent and resulting from his negligence the bomb blasts there, leaving the other miscreant injured. The plaintiff had an intention to smuggle the box of tea to England. Later, the plaintiff learned that the defendant never paid for the tea and hence the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover the money paid by him to the defendant.
It was his mere intention to smuggle. Lord Mansfield gave judgement on illegality doctrine. He held that the objection of a contract being illegal or immoral never sounds good in the mouth of the defendant. The defendant is exempted from any liability only when the defendant relied upon the illegal act committed by plaintiff and both of them had some benefits from the common cause i.
Therefore, an unlawful act on the part of the plaintiff or contribution to the unlawful act of defendant by the plaintiff is an absolutely valid defence in Torts. When the maxim is applied successfully to cases where the plaintiff, who has been involved in wrongdoing of defendant, has incurred damages from the wrongful acts of defendant, acts as a complete bar on legal remedy.
This maxim is also referred to as illegality defence, even though its range is much beyond a mere illegal or immoral act. Ashton v Turner10 In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant were escaping in a car after the both committed a burglary. Both of them were under the influence of alcohol while driving. The car met with an accident when the defendant crashed the car against the guardrails of a bridge. The plaintiff was injured in the accident. He sued the plaintiff on the grounds that he had a reasonable care of duty towards his passenger, which he has failed to exercise.
Justice Anthony Ewbank dismissed the claims of the defendant.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
He discusses the defence of ex turpi causa in detail. Meaning Whenever a person does an unlawful act, the person who suffers loss because of such an act has the right to claim remedy against him in the court. For e. But in some cases, the plaintiff is not allowed to claim damages from the defendant because he himself has committed an illegal act and therefore he cannot get any remedy in the court. This is known as Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which means that no action can arise from an illegal act. It is one of the defences which exempts the defendant from his liability because the plaintiff has also committed an illegal act.
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
Related Terms: Jus Ex Injuria Non Oritur , Equity , Clean Hands In other words, if one is engaged in illegal activity, one cannot sue another for damages that arose out of that illegal activity. This old and well known legal maxim is founded on good sense, and expresses a clear and well recognized legal principle which is not confined to indictable offences. No court ought to enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, if the illegality is duly brought to the notice of the court, and if the person invoking the aid of the court is himself implicated in the illegality. It matters not whether the defendant has pleaded the illegality or whether he has not. If the evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves the illegality the court ought not to assist him.
Ex Dolo Malo Non Oritur Actio Law and Legal Definition
The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio ["no action arises from deceit"]. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis ["stronger is the position of the defendant"]. See also: English tort law In the law of tort , the principle would prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against for example a fellow criminal.