UK: Claimants Behaving Badly

Last Updated: 4 March 2009
Article by Mark Dickson, Partner

Does the illegality doctrine apply to tort claims?

When might a defence based on the ex turpi or illegality principle be successful in a tort case? The ex turpi rule (or ex turpi causa non oritor actio, to give the principle its full name) is that no legal action based on illegality can succeed.

For many years, the courts adopted a flexible approach to the principle in tort cases, as the seriousness of the illegality could vary. A public conscience test was developed. In Tinsley v Milligan (1993), the House of Lords applied a test based on reliance: did the claimant have to rely on their own illegality in order to pursue their claim? If so, the claim would fail. Tinsley was a property rights case, though. Two recent decisions have examined how far the Tinsley principle applies to tort claims.

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd

The first case is the Court of Appeal decision in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2008). Mr Gray was a victim of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in October 1999. Although he suffered fairly minor physical injuries, the accident had a significant psychological effect upon him – post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with a marked depressive component. The defendants admitted liability.

Subsequently, on 19 August 2001, Mr Gray stabbed a stranger to death – an act which was completely out of keeping with his previous character. Mr Gray pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. He later claimed damages from the defendant train companies, including loss of earnings arising from the rail crash.

The defendants accepted they were liable for losses up to 19 August 2001. However, they denied liability for losses after that date on the grounds of the claimant's illegal action. At trial, Mr Justice Flaux rejected Mr Gray's claim. He ruled that a claimant breaches the ex turpi principle if their claim is closely connected to – or is inextricably bound up with – their own criminal or illegal conduct. This was the position in Mr Gray's case.

The Court of Appeal reversed Mr Justice Flaux's decision. It said that if Mr Gray had been convicted of an offence unconnected to the PTSD, the chain of causation would have been broken and the defendants would have had a defence. The key question was whether a claimant's loss was so closely connected to – or inextricably bound up with – their criminal or illegal conduct that the court could not allow them to recover damages without appearing to condone their behaviour. If the manslaughter did not break the chain of causation between the tort and the loss of earnings, then any loss of earnings after 19 August 2001 was not inextricably bound up with Mr Gray's illegal killing of the stranger.

The court accepted that Mr Gray would not have committed manslaughter if he had not suffered the PTSD caused by the tort. Consequently, the illegal act did not break the chain and Mr Gray was entitled to recover loss of earnings. The test in Tinsley was too narrow to apply to a case in tort: the Court of Appeal preferred a broader principle.

The Court of Appeal distinguished two earlier Court of Appeal cases – Clunis and Worrall – on the grounds that the losses suffered in those cases were a direct result of crime, rather than a foreseeable result of a breach of duty of care owed by the defendant. Clunis and Worrall would certainly stop a claimant recovering losses caused by compulsory detention in prison or hospital. But neither decision had looked at the question of whether the loss of earnings was caused by a defendant's negligence rather than a claimant's commission of a criminal offence and subsequent imprisonment.

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd

After arguments had been heard in the Gray case, the House of Lords gave judgment in Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd (2008). Although this was a suicide case, it raised questions that could be important in Gray. The Court of Appeal therefore invited the parties to make written submissions about the issues in the House of Lords' decision.

In the Corr case, it was decided that the claimant's widow was entitled to damages for loss of dependency, as her husband's suicide did not break the chain of causation. The claimant had suffered serious injury at work and became severely depressed before committing suicide. The House of Lords unanimously decided that the claimant's depression was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of IBC Vehicles' breach of duty. The claimant did not have to show that the suicide itself was foreseeable. There was no break in the chain of causation, as the claimant's decision to commit suicide was caused by the depression resulting from the breach of duty.

Contributory negligence

In Corr, the House of Lords unanimously held that suicide was "fault" within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Act 1945 (the Act) and therefore a finding of contributory negligence could be made. Although the law lords did not reduce the compensation payable in this particular instance, they agreed that it might sometimes be appropriate to cut down the damages payable in similar cases.

Following Corr, the Court of Appeal in Gray also considered the possibility of contributory negligence on the basis that the manslaughter was "fault" within the meaning of the Act. The loss of earnings was caused partly by the tort and partly by the claimant's deliberate act of stabbing a stranger. Therefore both parties were blameworthy. Rather than condoning the manslaughter, the court considered that apportionment would ensure the claimant only recovered losses for which the defendants were truly responsible. As the issues of foreseeability, causation and contributory negligence had not been pleaded or argued (only having been considered in the light of Corr), the Court of Appeal felt that the case ought to be remitted back to the High Court for consideration of these issues.

Comment

The Gray case did not involve a break in the chain of causation. On the evidence, the claimant would not have committed manslaughter without suffering from the PTSD caused by the defendant's negligence.

Both sides agreed that if the claimant had committed a crime that was unrelated to the PTSD and unconnected to the defendant's negligence, there would have been a complete defence to the claim for loss of earnings. However, as a matter of principle, if it is right to stop a claimant from recovering damages, the court should not decide that there was a break in the chain of causation. Instead, the court should say in clear terms that public policy requires that the claim should fail.

It is debatable whether the simple "but for" test of causation – tempered by apportionment of liability through contributory fault – is a good way of dealing with such extreme cases.

This point was considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in State Rail Authority of NSW v Wiegold (1991). This case decided that, where a claimant has been convicted of a crime, they should bear both the direct and indirect consequences. Consequently, damages could not possibly be recovered for a period of incarceration. The Australian court rightly pointed out the potential harm to the justice system if the law of negligence said that an offender:

  • should not be held responsible for their actions; and
  • (just to add injury to insult) should also be compensated by the defendant.

This would lead to a conflict between the civil and criminal law and bring the law into disrepute.

There is one other factor that the Court of Appeal appears to have ignored. There is a well-established principle (hallowed by previous House of Lords' decisions) that where the claimant experiences a change in circumstances since the cause of action arose – or the original act of negligence happened – the court will look at the actual position as known. It will not speculate about what might have happened if that change of circumstance had not taken place. In Gray, the Court of Appeal tackled the claim for continuing loss on the basis that the claimant would have been in employment both before and after commission of the offence and was therefore entitled to recover the whole of that loss. However, this approach looks little more than a way of ignoring the commission of a serious criminal offence when assessing damages.

Leave to appeal to the House of Lords has been granted to Thames Trains and their fellow defendants Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (better known under their former name of Railtrack). Leave to cross-appeal has also been given to Mr Gray. It remains to be seen whether the House of Lords will choose to reassert the ex turpi principle, thereby limiting the loss that can be recovered in a personal injury action where the claimant has committed a serious criminal act for which he can fairly be held responsible.

www.kennedys-law.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions