Joyce & Anor v O'Brien & Anor [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB) (17 May 2012)

Joyce & Anor v O'Brien & Anor [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB) (17 May 2012)

The claim is barred because the claimant and first defendant were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise (theft and getaway), and the claimant's injuries were directly caused by his participation in that crime. As a matter of public policy, no duty of care is owed between co-conspirators, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1324
Parties
Claimant: Mr David Michael Joyce (by his litigation friend Miss Stephanie Tarrant); First Defendant: Mr Edward Gerald O'Brien; Second Defendant: Tradex Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Negligence / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio, Duty of Care, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Causation, Public Policy
Tort Law Insurance Law Negligence Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio Duty of Care Joint Criminal Enterprise Causation Public Policy

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Michael Joyce (by his litigation friend Miss Stephanie Tarrant)

Claimant

Mr Edward Gerald O'Brien

First Defendant

Tradex Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Negligence / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a participant in a joint criminal enterprise can recover damages for personal injury caused by the negligence of a co-conspirator during the commission of the crime
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio bars the claim
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care exists between co-participants in a crime

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred because the claimant and first defendant were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise (theft and getaway), and the claimant's injuries were directly caused by his participation in that crime. As a matter of public policy, no duty of care is owed between co-conspirators, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim fails; costs to follow the event unless parties show special features.