Taylor v Bhail [1995] EWCA Civ 54 (01 November 1995)

The contract was indivisible and tainted by fraud; courts will not enforce contracts intended to defraud third parties, nor allow recovery on quantum meruit when the contract is void for illegality.

Citation: [1995] EWCA Civ 54
Parties: Plaintiff: Plaintiff (Builder); Defendant: Defendant (Headmaster); Amicus Curiae: Mr Brennan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 November 1995
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed in relation to contract one; appeal dismissed in relation to contract two.
Legal Topics: Illegality in Contracts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Severance of Illegal Contract Terms, Quantum Meruit

Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Fraud Illegality in Contracts Fraudulent Misrepresentation Severance of Illegal Contract Terms Quantum Meruit

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Plaintiff (Builder)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Headmaster)

Defendant

Mr Brennan

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Can a contract tainted by fraud against an insurer be enforced?
2 Is it possible to sever the illegal part of a contract from the lawful part?
3 Can quantum meruit be claimed when the contract is void for illegality?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was indivisible and tainted by fraud; courts will not enforce contracts intended to defraud third parties, nor allow recovery on quantum meruit when the contract is void for illegality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to contract one; appeal dismissed in relation to contract two.

Orders

£2,892.05 substituted for County Court Judge's order for contract two.
No order for costs.