Patel v Mirza
2016 · [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Patel paid Mirza money to bet on shares using inside information. The plan failed and Patel sought his money back.
- Issue
- Did illegality bar the claim?
- Held
- No. The Supreme Court held that the court should consider the purpose of the rule broken, other relevant public policies, and whether denying the claim would be proportionate. Patel got his money back.
- Principle
- Illegality is judged by policy and , not by whether the claimant relies on the illegality.
- Why it matters
- It replaces the Tinsley v Milligan approach in England, and is persuasive elsewhere.
Words and Latin in this note
- Proportionality
- A structured test: is the aim legitimate, is the measure rationally connected to it, could a less intrusive means be used, and is a fair balance struck? Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.