Wallett & Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) (14 November 2018)

Wallett & Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) (14 November 2018)

The Recorder's finding of a criminal joint enterprise cannot stand because there was no express or justified finding that the deceased intended to encourage the defendant to drive dangerously; absent such intention, ex turpi causa does not bar the claim. The claim succeeds, subject to a 60% reduction for contributory negligence due to the deceased's greater blameworthiness and causative potency.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3088 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Kelly Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the dependants of Ian Hill (Deceased)); Respondent/defendant: Michael Vickers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court at Sheffield
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant with reduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Ex Turpi Causa, Contributory Negligence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Fatal Accidents Act 1976
Tort Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Negligence Ex Turpi Causa Contributory Negligence Joint Criminal Enterprise Fatal Accidents Act 1976

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelly Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the dependants of Ian Hill (Deceased))

Appellant/claimant

Michael Vickers

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Appeal From County Court at Sheffield

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is barred by ex turpi causa due to alleged criminal joint enterprise in dangerous driving
  2. 2 Whether the deceased intended to encourage the defendant to drive dangerously (mental element for joint enterprise)
  3. 3 Whether contributory negligence applies and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's finding of a criminal joint enterprise cannot stand because there was no express or justified finding that the deceased intended to encourage the defendant to drive dangerously; absent such intention, ex turpi causa does not bar the claim. The claim succeeds, subject to a 60% reduction for contributory negligence due to the deceased's greater blameworthiness and causative potency.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for claimant with reduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant for £86,000 (40% of agreed quantum of £215,000)