Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd
The contract was not unenforceable for illegality because the intention to use unlawful means was provisional, not central to the contract, and would have been changed if Somerfield had objected; the illegality was incidental and not sufficient to justify denying ParkingEye's claim for damages.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: ParkingEye Limited; Defendant/appellant: Somerfield Stores Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Illegality Defence, Contractual Performance, Tort of Deceit, Repudiatory Breach, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ParkingEye Limited
Claimant/respondent
Somerfield Stores Limited
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Somerfield can rely on illegality as a complete defence to ParkingEye's claim for damages
- 2 Whether the contract was unenforceable due to intended unlawful performance
- 3 Centrality and gravity of the alleged illegality in the context of the contract
Ratio Decidendi
The contract was not unenforceable for illegality because the intention to use unlawful means was provisional, not central to the contract, and would have been changed if Somerfield had objected; the illegality was incidental and not sufficient to justify denying ParkingEye's claim for damages.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Somerfield's illegality defence rejected
- ParkingEye's claim for damages upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment