Description
Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) Illegality after Patel v Mirza by Edited by Sarah Green Edited by Alan Bogg
In iPatel v Mirza ([/i2016] UKSC 42) nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson Lady Hale Lord Kerr Lord Wilson Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach but their mode of reasoning was described as “revolutionary” by Lord Sumption (at [261]) who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly the reliance principle from iTinsley v Milligan/i ([1994] 1 AC 340) has been discarded as has the rule in iParkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd/i ([1925] KB 1). iPatel v Mirza/i can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation. This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. The timing of the book means that it is unusually well-placed as the ‘go to’ work on this subject.