MacDonald v Myerson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 66 (26 January 2001)

MacDonald v Myerson & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 66 (26 January 2001)

The claimant was entitled to the proceeds of sale held by the solicitors because he had a proprietary interest in those funds as their client, and did not need to rely on his own illegal acts to establish that entitlement. The defence of illegality did not bar recovery as the claim was based on proprietary rights, not on enforcement of an illegal contract.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 66
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David MacDonald; Defendant/appellant: Geoffrey Myerson; Defendant/appellant: John Callaghan; Defendant/appellant: Derek A. H. Law
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Proceeds of Crime, Solicitor's Duties, Resulting Trusts, Mortgage Fraud
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Property Law Illegality Defence Proceeds of Crime Solicitor's Duties Resulting Trusts Mortgage Fraud

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David MacDonald

Claimant/respondent

Geoffrey Myerson

Defendant/appellant

John Callaghan

Defendant/appellant

Derek A. H. Law

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of illegality (ex turpi causa) bars the claimant from recovering proceeds of sale held by solicitors where the underlying property was acquired by mortgage fraud.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant must rely on his own unlawful acts to found his cause of action against the solicitors.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was entitled to the proceeds of sale held by the solicitors because he had a proprietary interest in those funds as their client, and did not need to rely on his own illegal acts to establish that entitlement. The defence of illegality did not bar recovery as the claim was based on proprietary rights, not on enforcement of an illegal contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for legal aid assessment of the claimant's costs
  • Appellants to pay costs