Safeway Stores Ltd & Ors v Twigger & Ors

Safeway Stores Ltd & Ors v Twigger & Ors

The ex turpi causa rule does not bar the claim because, on the pleaded case, the claimants’ liability for the anti-competitive acts arises via the general law of agency, not as primary or direct liability. The claimants are not personally at fault, and the public policy underlying ex turpi causa does not require...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Safeway Stores Limited; Claimant: Safeway Limited; Claimant: Stores Group Limited; Defendant: Simon John Twigger and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Applications for summary judgment/strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa), Attribution of Liability to Companies, Recoverability of Fines/penalties, Directors' and Officers' Duties, Public Policy in Competition Law
Competition Law Employment Law Company Law Tort Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa) Attribution of Liability to Companies Recoverability of Fines/penalties Directors' and Officers' Duties +1 more

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Safeway Stores Limited

Claimant

Safeway Limited

Claimant

Stores Group Limited

Claimant

Simon John Twigger and Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' claim for indemnity/damages against former employees/directors is barred by the ex turpi causa (illegality) rule
  2. 2 Whether the acts of the defendants are attributable to the claimants as primary/direct liability or only via agency/vicarious liability
  3. 3 Whether the claim is inconsistent with the statutory competition regime

Ratio Decidendi

The ex turpi causa rule does not bar the claim because, on the pleaded case, the claimants’ liability for the anti-competitive acts arises via the general law of agency, not as primary or direct liability. The claimants are not personally at fault, and the public policy underlying ex turpi causa does not require barring a claim for indemnity or damages against employees/directors whose breaches of duty caused the penalty. The claim is not inconsistent with the statutory competition regime, as the Competition Act 1998 does not preclude such common law claims.

Court Disposition

Applications for summary judgment/strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants’ claims not struck out; summary judgment refused for defendants
  • Further submissions to be considered as to consequential orders and directions for future conduct of the case