Beaumont & Anor v Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768 (19 July 2016)

Beaumont & Anor v Ferrer [2016] EWCA Civ 768 (19 July 2016)

The claimants' injuries were caused by their own criminal act of making off without payment, which was integral to their claim. Even if the driver was negligent, the ex turpi causa maxim bars recovery because the criminality was central to the events leading to injury.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 768
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Thomas Beaumont; Appellant: Lewis O'Neill; Respondent: David Ferrer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Illegality (ex Turpi Causa), Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Negligence Causation Illegality (ex Turpi Causa) Contributory Negligence

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Thomas Beaumont

Appellant

Lewis O'Neill

Appellant

David Ferrer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxi driver was negligent in driving off with the claimants in the vehicle and an open door
  2. 2 Whether any negligence by the driver caused the claimants' injuries
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' criminal conduct (making off without payment) bars recovery under the ex turpi causa maxim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' injuries were caused by their own criminal act of making off without payment, which was integral to their claim. Even if the driver was negligent, the ex turpi causa maxim bars recovery because the criminality was central to the events leading to injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants shall pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to restrictions regarding enforcement for costs incurred after 26 June 2015 due to Legal Aid.