UK: Solicitors PI: Illegality And Vicarious Liability

In a case last month, a claim against solicitors failed on the basis of the illegality defence. The judge found that the payment that the claimants were seeking to recover had been intended by them to be a bribe and that they could not rely upon their own illegal or immoral conduct to recover compensation.

The case also raised a number of other issues:

  • the circumstances in which a firm may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees in circumstances where – as here – the employee, although a solicitor, was primarily concerned with marketing and business development and acted as a "deal maker";
  • whether, notwithstanding the absence of a solicitor/client relationship, the employee may nevertheless owe a personal duty of care;
  • the inferences that a court is likely to draw if a party fails to give evidence in person at trial without good reason.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

A recent case considered whether the illegality defence precluded a claim by a purported client against a solicitor for an unreturned payment that had been intended to be a bribe.

A group of travel agents brought a claim against Denton Wilde Sapte ("DWS") and a senior solicitor in its India Group, a Ms Gauri Advani. Ms Advani, whose role in the firm was focused on business development rather than fee earning, had introduced the travel agents to an opportunity to be the exclusive Global Sales Agent ("GSA") of Air India for the UK and Ireland. As part of the deal, payments totalling around £370,000 were made by the travel agents to a third party. The GSA was never awarded and the sums paid over were not returned. DWS and Ms Advani were sued by the disappointed travel agents for the loss of this so-called 'deposit'.


The claim against both Defendants failed on the basis of the illegality defence - the principle that a claimant cannot rely upon its own illegal or immoral conduct to recover compensation.

The court found that the 'deposit' was intended to be a bribe in civil law and that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a breach of criminal law. It did not matter that the bribe was unsuccessful; the moral turpitude of the briber was the same whether the bribe was actual or only attempted. The agents' argument that the illegality related to the underlying GSA transaction rather than any contract being sued on did not defeat the defence. The judge was satisfied that there was a very clear and close connection between the wrongful conduct and the claim made - the wrongful conduct was the payment of the attempted bribe and this payment was the thing being claimed.

Vicarious liability of DWS

DWS were sued on the basis that they were vicariously liable for Ms Advani's actions and/or that these were within her actual or ostensible authority. Although he did not need to, the judge did make findings in this regard.

The essential question for vicarious liability is whether the tort is so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously responsible. Whether Ms Advani's actions fell under her actual and/or ostensible authority depends upon whether her actions could be said to fall within her actual role and/or the usual role and business of a solicitor performing her role.

It was found that Ms Advani's role at DWS was primarily one of marketing and business development, although she was and was held out to be a solicitor and her role did on occasions extend to providing legal advice or assistance. The judge found, however, that Ms Advani's role in this transaction could be best described as a deal broker and that none of these activities were within her marketing role as held out by DWS or within the ordinary course of a solicitor's business. Accordingly, she was not acting within her actual or ostensible authority and DWS were not vicariously liable for her actions.

Of relevance was the fact that Ms Advani had a personal role and financial stake in the deal. The £250,000 fee demanded by her was found to be effectively her commission for broking the deal, rather than a payment for legal services. Out of that sum, she would pay any legal costs involved, but this represented her personal fee, rather than DWS's fee.

These facts and matters were found to be known to the travel agents. Objectively, it would be apparent to reasonable and competent people in their position that Ms Advani was not performing a solicitorial or legal advisory role and that her actions were not so closely connected with her employment that it would be fair and just to hold DWS vicariously responsible.

Ms Advani's personal breach of duty

The court found that although no solicitor / client relationship arose between Ms Advani and the travel agents, she did assume a duty of care to them in her role as negotiator and deal broker. Had the illegality defence not succeeded, the court indicated that it would have found Ms Advani in breach of that duty and liable for 80% of the travel agents' losses.

Ms Advani's failure to give evidence

Ms Advani was not assisted by the fact that, although she had submitted witness statements to support her defence, she did not give evidence at trial.

The fact that a witness is not present at trial, in the absence of some good reason, tends to indicate that the witness does not have confidence in his or her statement. Such evidence will also not have been tested by cross-examination.

In Wisniewski (A Minor) –v- Central Manchester Health Authority (1998), the Court of Appeal had summarised the relevant principles to be applied:

  • in certain circumstances, a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a witness who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action;
  • if a court is willing to draw such inferences, they may go to strengthen the evidence adduced on that issue by the other party or to weaken the evidence, if any, adduced by the party who might reasonably have been expected to call the witness;
  • there must, however, have been some evidence, however weak, adduced by the former on the matter in question before the court is entitled to draw the desired inference: in other words, there must be a case to answer on that issue;
  • if the reason for the witness's absence or silence satisfies the court, then no such adverse inference may be drawn. If, on the other hand, there is some credible explanation given, even if it is not wholly satisfactory, the potentially detrimental effect of his absence or silence may be reduced or nullified.

The main reason Ms Advani gave for not giving evidence was that there was no case to answer because the evidence of the travel agents' witnesses was so unreliable that none of it could be safely relied upon, as it was uncorroborated. This was rejected by the judge. Whilst not all the evidence of these witnesses was accepted, it was found that there was "a core of truth in the allegations underlying the claim" and that there was an evidential case to answer.

An ancillary reason offered by Ms Advani was that, even if their evidence were accepted, the claim would fail for illegality. This was not accepted as a reason for Ms Advani's failure to back up her stark denials of key aspects of the factual case against her.

The judge held that, as there was a positive case to answer, he was entitled to draw adverse inferences from Ms Advani's failure to give evidence at trial.


Although the illegality related to the underlying transaction, rather than the actual contract sued under , the defence succeeded. This is a logical and unsurprising application of the principle of illegality because compensation for the unreturned bribe was the very thing being claimed. On any view of the matter, experienced businessmen paying bribes can (and should) expect no sympathy or assistance from the courts.

The firm – as Ms Advani's former employer - prevailed on the vicarious liability issue. The travel agents were not, and never had been, clients of the firm and Ms Advani had been acting outside the scope of her actual or ostensible authority. She was acting on her own behalf (rather than on behalf of DWS) and the £250,000 was, in reality, a commission payment to her personally, rather than a payment for legal services.

Although the facts of the case were fairly extreme, it does highlight a wider concern for solicitors doing business in emerging markets where business practices may be different to those in their own jurisdiction. In addition, where solicitors are engaged principally in marketing and development and the introduction of parties in the commercial field with a view to generating fees, they may well seek to "put deals together" between interested parties. Where matters proceed, care needs to be taken to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest and allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. This is best done by identifying the client at the outset and ensuring that the firm does not, during the course of preliminary discussions, acquire any relevant confidential information about Party A which could disable it from acting for Party B when it is proposed that a solicitor-client relationship be established with the latter.

Although DWS were not liable for Ms Advani's actions in this instance, had her involvement been different and she had been acting within the scope of a solicitor's usual role, DWS could have found itself liable for her breach. It would then have been left relying solely upon the public policy illegality defence. The Law Commission has decided that this is an area to be developed through case law and has suggested that judges should only allow a defence of illegality to succeed where justified by a public policy rationale and where depriving a claimant of his rights is a proportionate response. It is, therefore, possible that less flagrant circumstances could arise in which the defence would not be available to a law firm to defeat the claim against it.

Further reading: Nayyar & Others v Denton Wilde Sapte & Another [2009] EWHC 3218 (QB)

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 22/01/2010.

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

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

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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