Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners (A Firm)

Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners (A Firm)

The court held that the narrow rule of ex turpi causa only bars recovery for losses flowing from the sentence imposed, not from the conviction alone. The wider rule requires a trial to determine the claimant's level of moral culpability and whether the criminal act breaks the chain of causation between the alleged negligent advice and the losses claimed. The facts are insufficiently clear to bar the claim at this stage; a trial is necessary.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Matthew Griffin; Defendant: UHY Hacker Young & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and strike out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ex Turpi Causa Defence, Strict Liability Offences, Duty of Care, Causation, Professional Advice, Illegality
Professional Negligence Insolvency Law Public Policy Ex Turpi Causa Defence Strict Liability Offences Duty of Care Causation Professional Advice +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Matthew Griffin

Claimant

UHY Hacker Young & Partners

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex turpi causa defence bars the claimant's claim for losses arising from his conviction under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether losses flowing from conviction (not just sentence) are barred under the narrow rule of ex turpi causa
  3. 3 What level of culpability is required for ex turpi causa to succeed in strict liability offences

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the narrow rule of ex turpi causa only bars recovery for losses flowing from the sentence imposed, not from the conviction alone. The wider rule requires a trial to determine the claimant's level of moral culpability and whether the criminal act breaks the chain of causation between the alleged negligent advice and the losses claimed. The facts are insufficiently clear to bar the claim at this stage; a trial is necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment and strike out is dismissed.
  • Further directions for trial to be determined.