Flint v Tittenso & Anor (Rev 1)

Flint v Tittenso & Anor (Rev 1)

The first defendant's deliberate application of force was not justified as reasonable self-defence; the claimant's criminal conduct did not break the chain of causation for public policy purposes, as the defendant's response was disproportionate and constituted a separate serious criminal act.

Parties
Claimant: Oliver Flint; First Defendant: Elliott Tittensor; Second Defendant: Motor Insurers Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Liability Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant
Legal Topics
Battery, Self Defence, Public Policy, Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
Tort Law Personal Injury Battery Self Defence Public Policy Ex Turpi Causa Volenti Non Fit Iniuria

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Flint

Claimant

Elliott Tittensor

First Defendant

Motor Insurers Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Liability Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant committed battery against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's actions were justified as reasonable self-defence
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's claim is barred by public policy due to his own illegal conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's deliberate application of force was not justified as reasonable self-defence; the claimant's criminal conduct did not break the chain of causation for public policy purposes, as the defendant's response was disproportionate and constituted a separate serious criminal act.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first defendant

Orders

  • Parties to agree and draw up an order reflecting the decision, including costs and a direction for a Case Management Conference
  • Any application for permission to appeal to be made in writing within 14 days of judgment