ex turpi causa CASES
In English private law, ex turpi causa (the illegality defence) limits recovery where a claim is founded on the claimant’s own serious wrongdoing. The modern approach is not a rigid rule. The court asks whether allowing the claim would damage the integrity of the legal system. That assessment turns on purpose, policy, and proportionality rather than labels.
The full phrase is ex turpi causa non oritur actio which means “no action arises from a dishonourable cause”
Definition and principles
The court undertakes a structured evaluation. It considers: (i) the purpose of the legal rule or statute that was broken and whether denying the claim would enhance that purpose; (ii) any other public policies that would be affected by allowing or denying the claim (for example, maintaining professional standards, compensating the innocent, or deterring crime); and (iii) whether denying the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, taking into account the seriousness of the conduct, how central it is to the claim, whether the wrongdoing was intentional, and whether denial would be a fair and coherent outcome overall.
Common examples
- Contracts and unjust enrichment: enforcement of an agreement that requires committing a crime or serious regulatory breach will usually be refused. However, restitution may still be allowed if it prevents unjust enrichment without undermining the relevant policy.
- Professional negligence linked to unlawful transactions: a client may recover against a negligent solicitor even if the transaction had unlawful features, where compensation upholds professional standards and does not frustrate criminal or regulatory objectives. Recovery is less likely where damages would neutralise a statutory penalty.
- Tort claims arising from serious crime: where the claimant’s own serious criminal act is integral to the loss (for example, injury or loss flowing directly from participation in a joint criminal enterprise), the claim is often barred. By contrast, minor regulatory breaches or wrongdoing that is merely incidental may not trigger the defence.
- Personal injury and psychiatric harm: claims seeking compensation for consequences of the claimant’s serious criminal violence typically fail, because awarding damages would be inconsistent with the aims of the criminal law.
Legal implications
- The defence is a matter of public policy. If it applies, it can defeat the whole claim or particular heads of loss. It is not a tool for percentage reduction (that is the role of contributory negligence).
- Illegality is distinct from consent (volenti) and from contributory negligence. It focuses on whether granting relief would be inconsistent with the law’s purposes, not on the claimant’s fault as such.
- The analysis is context-specific. The same facts may yield different outcomes in contract, tort, and unjust enrichment depending on how allowing recovery would affect the integrity of the legal system in that setting.
- Courts are cautious about creating blanket categories. The key questions are seriousness, centrality to the claim, and coherence with neighbouring legal rules and statutory schemes.
Practical importance
When advising, identify precisely what illegality is alleged and how it connects to the cause of action. Explain how allowing or denying the claim would advance the relevant legal purposes. Set out the proportionality factors (seriousness, intentionality, centrality, and the effect on third parties). Consider whether particular heads of loss can be separated, whether a restitutionary route is available that does not undermine policy, and whether alternative claims (for example, against a professional adviser) better align with the law’s objectives.
See also: Illegality; Public policy; Contributory negligence; Volenti non fit injuria; Joint criminal enterprise; Contract illegality; Unjust enrichment; Professional negligence; Restitution.
Home » ex turpi causa
A 'one-man' company, used entirely as a vehicle for a massive fraud by its sole director, sued its auditors for negligently failing to detect the fraud. The court held that the fraud was attributed to the company, barring its claim based on the illegality principle (ex turpi causa). Facts Stone & Rolls Ltd (S&R), acting through its liquidators, brought a claim for over US$94 million against its auditors, Moore Stephens (MS). The claim was for negligence, alleging that MS had failed in its duty to detect and report a massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by S&R’s sole director and shareholder, Mr
The claimant suffered PTSD from a rail crash caused by the defendant's negligence. He later committed manslaughter. The House of Lords held he could not claim damages for losses resulting from his own criminal act and subsequent detention, applying the ex turpi causa principle. Facts The claimant, Mr Gray, was a passenger on a train involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster, for which the defendant, Thames Trains, admitted liability in negligence. Mr Gray suffered severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the crash. Subsequently, he was involved in a road-rage incident where he stabbed and killed a
A hunt saboteur, Mr Cross, was injured when a farmer, Mr Kirkby, struck him with a baseball bat during a confrontation. Mr Kirkby claimed self-defence. The court found Kirkby's actions were not grossly disproportionate, allowing the defence and clarifying principles of self-defence. Facts The claimant, Mr Cross, was a hunt saboteur who, with others, was attempting to disrupt the Longstone Edge Hunt. The defendant, Mr Kirkby, was a farmer and a member of the hunt staff. The saboteurs trespassed onto Mr Kirkby’s land. Mr Kirkby, holding a baseball bat, confronted Mr Cross and a fellow saboteur. An altercation ensued in
A man convicted of manslaughter sued a health authority for negligently failing to treat his mental illness, which he claimed caused the killing. The court struck out the claim, applying the public policy doctrine ('ex turpi causa') that a claimant cannot recover for loss resulting from their own criminal act. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Andre Clunis, had a history of mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, which included incidents of violence. After being detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was discharged into the community under the care of the defendant health authority. The authority had a statutory
Liquidators of Bilta, a company used for VAT fraud by its directors, sued those directors. The directors argued their fraud should be attributed to the company, barring the claim. The court held that fraud cannot be attributed to a company when the claim is against the wrongdoing directors themselves. Facts Bilta (UK) Ltd was a company used by its sole director, Mr Nazir, and other individuals and companies to carry out a carousel fraud scheme involving the trade of European Emissions Trading Scheme Allowances (carbon credits). The scheme was designed to defraud HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) by generating a
