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 fails 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 and inextricably linked to that criminal activity. As a matter of public policy, no duty of care is owed between co-conspirators in the commission of a crime, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery. The claimant's own criminal conduct was as causative of his injuries as the first defendant's driving.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1324 (QB)
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 Claim / 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, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Insurance Law Negligence Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio Duty of Care Joint Criminal Enterprise Causation Public Policy +1 more

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 Claim / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can recover damages for personal injury sustained during the course of a joint criminal enterprise with the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care is owed between participants in a joint criminal enterprise

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails 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 and inextricably linked to that criminal activity. As a matter of public policy, no duty of care is owed between co-conspirators in the commission of a crime, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery. The claimant's own criminal conduct was as causative of his injuries as the first defendant's driving.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; costs to follow the event unless parties show special features warranting a different order