Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio PDF

Preview

Summary

Here is a summary discussion of the Doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio on how it operate, its meaning and general exceptions to it...

Description

A contract referred to as a legal binding agreement which is enforceable by the law as per section 2 (1)(h) of the Law of Contract Act,1 and thus it is a legal binding agreement because it contains the rights and interests of the parties and is enforceable because it abides with the all requirement authorized by the law and thus it involves duties and obligations between parties so that none of the parties should act otherwise and cause the other one to suffer damages, and if it happens so, then the one who suffered damages shall be able to claim for remedies before the court of law.2 However, the doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio means that, no cause of action may be founded on an immoral or illegal act or under dishonorable cause, an action does not arise, this is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act3, and that the parties will not be able to enforce the contract since it was formed under one’s illegal act and both parties are well aware with the illegality of the contract entered.4 In the case of Ashton v Turner5 The plaintiff sought damages after being injured as a passenger in a car. He and the driver had both just been involved in a burglary, and the driver, who had taken alcohol was attempting to escape. The driver was driving very dangerously in order to avoid their arrest after two taxi drivers had tried to block the car and the court Held that, the claim failed as a matter of public policy the law would not recognize a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another: ‘a duty of care did not exist between the first defendant and the plaintiff during the course of the burglary and during the course of the subsequent flight in the get-away car. The court further held in the alternative that, even if a duty of care was owed, the Claimant had willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence and injury resulting from it. But also in the case of Pitts v Hunt6 the plaintiff was the pillion passenger on a motor cycle, involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the second defendant, which resulted in the death of the motor cycle rider and serious injuries for the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the rider had been drinking before the accident and the plaintiff knew that the rider did not have a motorbike license and insurance. The plaintiff was also encouraging the rider to drive recklessly. The plaintiff 1 Cap 345 R.E 2018 2 Case Note - Contract Law - Rule of Law Institute of Australia". Rule of Law Institute of Australia. 2018-05-31. Retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 11:42am 3 Legal Definition of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio". legal-glossary.org. Retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 11:55am 4 https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/ retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 12:04pm 5 QBD 1981 6 [1990] 3 All ER 344

brought and action in negligence against the driver of the other vehicle and the first defendant, who was the deceased rider’s personal representative. The Queen’s Bench outright dismissed the claim against the second defendant and dismissed the claim against the first defendant, on grounds that the plaintiff was contributory negligent to the extent of 100 per cent. The plaintiff appealed the decision in regards to the first defendant. And the Appeal was dismissed the court held that the plaintiff’s action arose directly Ex Turpi Tausa (out of his own illegal act) and therefore, he is prevented from recovering compensation from the first defendant. Perhaps, under this doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa it is seen as the plaintiff is seeking only for the compensation due to the loss occurred on his side as the result of the breaching contract and such compensation is for the purpose of restoring his original position rather than gaining new thing as per the principle of restitution7. Moreover, as far as the doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa is concerned, the plaintiff before bring the claim to the court shall have to make sure that he or she does not involved in any way that the court may regard such act as a dishonorable one unless otherwise the plaintiff shall have to plea for the illegality committed and thus the claimant from there will not be able to succeed his claims since the court will not allow it or even entertain it because of an illegal acts committed at the moment of forming the contract8. In that sense, a person may have to consider different things that should make him aware as to whether he can have a claim or not, and thus a claim for compensation may be impossible if the illegality cannot be separated from the cause of action and therefore due to that regard, the fact that the cause of action arises from an illegality, that will definitely prevent the claimant to win his claim unless he can be able to avoid the plea of illegality however, the justification by the courts in determining whether a Claimant can bring a case for compensation even if they have committed an illegal action is extremely bigger on the public policy9. In the case of National Coal Board v England10, it was founded that any wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff would not prevent the plaintiff from bringing an action where the court is of the opinion that to offer compensation would not be in contravention of public policy. Therefore, 7 https://www.personalinjurysolicitor.ie/b/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 12:49pm 8 https://www.personalinjurysolicitor.ie/b/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 12:59pm 9 https://www.personalinjurysolicitor.ie/b/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio retrieved on 17/03/2020 at 1:23pm 10 [1954] AC 403

it appears that the courts will analyze cases based on partiality rather than the usual objective tests. In order for the doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa to apply there should be the existence of the following elements. i.

The claim should be brought by the claimant against the defendant and the defendant is the one who is fully responsible for the damages, which means that the claimant institute a case before the court seeking for compensation as a result of the defendant to breach the contract and hence the claimant suffered loss11.

ii.

The actions of the plaintiff have to be in a specific course of action which is illegal. Apart from the fact that the plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant for breaching the contract that lead him to suffer damages and hence seeking for remedies, also the plaintiff himself involved in an illegal act on the same contract under which when the court find out about the wrongdoing of the plaintiff, the court may never enforce the remedies to the plaintiff and the defendant can be exempted from liability since the contract was unlawful from the beginning12.

Exception to the doctrine of Ex Turpi Causa are mainly two which are as follows Third party who maybe an agent or trustee who stand on behalf of the original party who from the beginning was the one engaged in any illegal acts, then third party will not be held liable as per this doctrine and instead the focus will be on identifying and compensate the true victim of the wrongdoing as it was held in the case of Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK)13 If the illegality is of so trivial nature that the plaintiff does not need to rely upon it for his case. Denying him to recover the damages in such cases would be against the public policy14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acts 11 https://blog.ipleaders.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/ retrieved on 18/03/2020 at 1:57pm 12 https://blog.ipleaders.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/ retrieved on 18/03/2020 at 2:02pm 13 Jetivia SA and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in Liquidation) and Others [2015] UKSC 23, [2016] AC 1 (Jetivia) 14 http://lawtimesjournal.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio-2/ retrieved on 18/03/2020 at 10:52pm

The Law of Contract Act Cap 345 R.E 2018

Cases Ashton v Turner QBD 1981 Pitts v Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 344 National Coal Board v England [1954] AC 403 Jetivia SA and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in Liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, [2016] AC 1

Online Sources Case Note - Contract Law - Rule of Law Institute of Australia". Rule of Law Institute of Australia. Legal Definition of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio". legal-glossary.org. https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/ https://www.personalinjurysolicitor.ie/b/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio https://blog.ipleaders.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio http://lawtimesjournal.in/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio-2/...