UK: Changing Attitudes On The Illegality Defence

Last Updated: 8 November 2016
Article by Sedgwick Chudleigh

Two recent decisions of UK appellate courts — one concerning a misfeasance claim against a liquidator and another involving an attempt to recover monies intended for insider trading — illustrate a new, more flexible approach to the "illegality defence". While common sense has prevailed, the new approach will make it harder for legal advisors to predict outcomes when an illegality defence is asserted.

At the heart of the illegality defence in civil claims lies the maxim: no court will lend its aid to a person whose cause of action relies on an illegal act. This principle is based upon public policy that no person should benefit from wrongdoing and that the law should not condone illegal activity. However, while it is clear that no court will give effect to an illegal agreement, this is where the certainty ends and it remains unclear as to where parties to such agreements are left when the agreement unravels.

The traditional test for determining whether illegality can successfully be pleaded as a defence is the 'reliance test' set out in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340. The reliance test will bar a claim if the claimant relies on the illegality in order to bring a claim. Two recent cases, however, have reduced the scope of the defence, broadened the courts' discretion and abolished the reliance test altogether.

Sharma v Top Brands

In Sharma (as former Liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) v Top Brands Ltd & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1140, the English Court of Appeal refused to allow a liquidator of a fraudulent company to rely on illegality in defending a claim for breach of duty under the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) (Act).


Mama Milla Ltd (MML) was a UK company that imported toiletry products and sold them within the UK without accounting for VAT, essentially committing VAT fraud. Top Brands and Lemione Services Ltd (LSL) supplied products to MML, and also agreed with MML to deliver goods directly to one of MML's customers, SERT Plc (SERT). SERT would typically pay MML for these deliveries and MML would then compensate

Top Brands and LSL. On the relevant occasion, however, MML was paid £548,074 from SERT but failed to make an onward payment to Top Brands and LSL before entering into a creditors' voluntary liquidation. Mrs Gagen Sharma was appointed as MML's liquidator. The liquidator incorrectly believed that SERT had not received the relevant goods from Top Brands and LSL and, accordingly, she instituted a number of refunds from MML to SERT, on what she thought were SERT's instructions. In fact, SERT had fraudulently claimed that it had not received the goods and instructed MML to make a number of payments into various bank accounts unrelated to SERT.

Top Brands and LSL were unable to recover their loss from MML's assets and together instituted recovery proceedings against the liquidator under Section 212 of the Act for misfeasance. At trial, the liquidator was found to have breached the Act by her negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She pleaded MML's illegal VAT fraud as a defence to the misfeasance claim. (Interestingly, Mrs Sharma did not attempt to rely upon SERT's illegality). Specifically, the liquidator argued that it would be contrary to public policy to allow the creditors to recover the proceeds from a fraudulent business. The trial judge found against the liquidator on the basis that MML's illegality was not relevant to Sharma's misfeasance.

The decision on appeal

Mrs Sharma appealed and argued that MML's primary business was essentially that of committing VAT fraud. She argued that the test for illegality was whether the claim was 'inextricably linked' to the illegality. In this case, MML's conduct was so closely linked with its VAT fraud that granting the respondent's claim would amount to condoning MML's illegality. The liquidator argued that the 'reliance test' should not be applied.

The Court of Appeal rejected the liquidator's submissions, regardless of which test was applied. She failed the 'reliance test' because MML's VAT fraud was irrelevant to her misfeasance and the respondents had no need to rely upon the illegality in making their claim. She failed the 'inextricable link' test because she could establish no causal link between the loss and the illegality. The court found that the illegality was simply a part of the factual background of the creditors' claim, but played no causal role in the loss itself.

With respect to the liquidator's public policy argument, the court found that there was a competing public policy requiring liquidators to collect and distribute the company's property among the creditors, especially where illegality had occurred.

However, the Court of Appeal was careful to note that there was actually no clear test elucidated in the authorities. It urged the Supreme Court to address the issue, but ultimately seemed to prefer the reliance test.

Patel v Mirza

In the July 2016 UK Supreme Court decision of Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, the Court revisited the illegality defence, this time in the context of contract for illegal insider trading.


Patel gave Mirza £620,000 to purchase shares in a bank about which Mirza had insider knowledge. Mirza's contacts failed to deliver and the deal collapsed, but Mirza kept Patel's money anyway. Patel brought restitution proceedings and Mirza pleaded the pair's illegal agreement of insider trading as a defence. Patel argued causes of action in trust, contract and restitution. At first instance, Patel's trust claim was unsuccessful and his contractual and restitutionary claims were barred because they relied upon an illegal agreement. The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the trial judge's decision on the basis that the illegality (i.e. insider trading) had not occurred. Patel was accordingly entitled to restitution. However, as in Sharma v Top Brands, the Court of Appeal reiterated that there remained uncertainties with respect to the application of the illegality defence.

The Supreme Court's decision

The full bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the illegality defence did not apply. In so doing, the court also rejected outright the reliance test in Tinsley v Milligan.

Writing for the majority, Lord Toulson held that a claimant who satisfies the ordinary requirements of a claim for unjust enrichment should not be barred from enforcing his claim simply because the money was paid for an unlawful purpose. The court held that a variety of factors must be taken into account when determining whether the illegality defence applied and whether it would be disproportionate to refuse relief. Such factors include (but are not limited to) the severity of the conduct, its connection to the contract, whether it was intentional and whether there was disparity between the parties' culpability. The court reiterated that punishment for wrongdoing is the responsibility of criminal courts. Patel in this case was seeking to unwind the agreement, not profit from it, and there was no reason why public policy would require Patel to forfeit the money.

Similarly, Lord Neuberger found that a claimant should be entitled to recoup money paid pursuant to a contract to carry out an illegal activity as a general rule.

Lord Sumption, however, dissented with respect to Lord Toulson's 'range of factors' test, arguing that it would lead to arbitrariness, confusion and an overly broad discretion, and that such a 'revolutionary change' was unnecessary to achieve justice in the majority of cases. The illegality defence should prevent Patel's contractual claim because the contract itself contained illegal terms. Having said that, his Honour nevertheless found that Patel was entitled to restitution because this would not be giving effect to an illegal contract. Rather, it would simply return the parties to the status quo.


Traditionally, the illegality defence has been a muddy area of the law and that remains the case notwithstanding the recent decisions. While the test has undoubtedly become more flexible, it has also raised new uncertainties. In the absence of similar factual scenarios, parties may be hard pressed to draw any meaningful principles from recent case law. Among other issues, differences remain between:

  • Cases where the illegality arises at contract inception and cases in which the illegality only occurs upon performance.
  • Cases where illegality is 'inextricably linked' to the agreement and cases in which it is simply incidental (e.g. Sharma v Top Brands).
  • Cases where both parties are culpable and cases where culpability is asymmetric.
  • Cases where the illegality arises under statute (e.g. Patel v Mirza) and cases where illegality is a moral matter.
  • Cases involving property rights, contractual rights, insolvency and restitution.

However, a clear consequence of these recent decisions is that the circumstances in which the illegality defence will succeed have narrowed. Accordingly, defendants should not place knee-jerk reliance on the illegality defence, nor can claimants simply expect to recover monies paid pursuant to a dubious contract. The courts have retained a high degree of discretion and have implemented a more policy- (as opposed to a principled-) based approach, and this is sure to influence the application of the illegality defence in cases in the offshore world.

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

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

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.