Patel v Mirza

Patel v Mirza

The claim is barred by illegality, as the arrangement was for insider trading contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Mr Patel cannot recover the monies paid, as withdrawal was not voluntary and the illegal purpose was not achieved due to external circumstances, not claimant's action. The court will not enforce...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Chandrakant Patel; Defendant: Salman Mirza
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality in Contracts, Unjust Enrichment, Resulting Trusts, Quistclose Trusts, Insider Trading
Contract Law Trust Law Criminal Law Illegality in Contracts Unjust Enrichment Resulting Trusts Quistclose Trusts Insider Trading

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandrakant Patel

Claimant

Salman Mirza

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether monies paid under an illegal contract can be recovered
  2. 2 Whether a trust (Quistclose or resulting) existed over the monies paid
  3. 3 Whether locus poenitentiae applies to permit recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred by illegality, as the arrangement was for insider trading contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Mr Patel cannot recover the monies paid, as withdrawal was not voluntary and the illegal purpose was not achieved due to external circumstances, not claimant's action. The court will not enforce the trust or unjust enrichment claim as it requires reliance on the illegal contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed