Patel v Mirza

Patel v Mirza

A claimant who satisfies the ordinary requirements of a claim for unjust enrichment should not be debarred from enforcing his claim by reason only of the fact that the money which he seeks to recover was paid for an unlawful purpose. The reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan is no longer to be followed. Instead, courts must consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition, any countervailing public policy, and whether denying the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality. In this case, denying Patel's claim would not serve the public interest or the integrity of the legal system, and he is entitled to restitution.

Parties
Respondent: Patel; Appellant: Mirza
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence, Restitution, Enforcement of Illegal Contracts, Locus Poenitentiae, Ratio Decidendi, Judicial Discretion
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Public Policy Illegality Defence Restitution Enforcement of Illegal Contracts Locus Poenitentiae Ratio Decidendi +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patel

Respondent

Mirza

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party to a contract tainted by illegality can recover money paid under the contract via unjust enrichment.
  2. 2 Whether the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan should continue to govern illegality in civil claims.
  3. 3 What framework should govern the application of the illegality defence in civil law.

Ratio Decidendi

A claimant who satisfies the ordinary requirements of a claim for unjust enrichment should not be debarred from enforcing his claim by reason only of the fact that the money which he seeks to recover was paid for an unlawful purpose. The reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan is no longer to be followed. Instead, courts must consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition, any countervailing public policy, and whether denying the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality. In this case, denying Patel's claim would not serve the public interest or the integrity of the legal system, and he is entitled to restitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Patel is entitled to restitution of £620,000 from Mr Mirza.
  • Interest to be paid on the sum awarded.