England and Wales Case Law

Afan Valley Limited (in administration) & Ors v Lupton Fawcett (a firm) & Ors

The claims against Lupton Fawcett (LF) are dismissed because the Claimants have not suffered recoverable loss: any liability to repay investors or lenders is offset by the receipt of those funds, and losses arise from the use or dissipation of funds, not their receipt. There is no sufficient causal nexus between the alleged breaches and the losses claimed. The proposed amendments against Metis are refused except for those agreed, as the breach of trust claim is unarguable and the amendments are prolix or unclear.

Source excerpt

• Solicitors’ duties
• Collective investment schemes (cis)
• Financial services and markets act 2000 (fsma)
• Limitation
• Ex turpi causa
• Breach of trust

Read case analysis

PF v QF

The court retains jurisdiction to debar a claim for financial remedies on public policy grounds where the ex turpi causa principle applies, but only where the criminal conduct is of sufficient gravity and causally linked to the claim. On the facts, both parties knew the marriage was void, neither misled the other, and their long-term partnership was akin to marriage. The applicant’s claim is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out.

Source excerpt

• Financial remedies
• Nullity of marriage
• Bigamy
• Ex turpi causa
• Strike out applications
• Public policy in family law

Read case analysis

Afan Valley Ltd & Ors v Lupton Fawcett (A Firm) & Ors (Rev1)

Afan Valley Ltd & Ors v Lupton Fawcett (A Firm) & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 909 (KB) (23 April 2024)

Professional negligence claims against solicitors in a failed property investment group were struck out against Lupton Fawcett. Some amendments against Metis were refused.

• Solicitors' duties
• Collective investment schemes
• Financial services and markets act 2000
• Breach of trust
• Limitation
• Ex turpi causa

Read case analysis

Majid Ali v HSF Logistics Polska SP Zoo

The absence of a valid MOT certificate does not bar recovery of credit hire charges under the causation defence where the claimant suffered real inconvenience and need for transport as a result of the defendant’s tort. The causation defence is, in substance, an ex turpi causa argument and must be subject to proportionality. Given the minor nature of the MOT offence, it would be disproportionate to deny recovery. The claimant is entitled to recover the hire charges in full.

Source excerpt

• Credit hire claims
• Loss of use
• Mitigation of loss
• Ex turpi causa
• Causation in tort
• Illegality doctrine

Read case analysis

PF v QF

PF v QF [2024] EWFC 10 (B) (15 January 2024)

The Family Court held that a strike-out or debarring application based on bigamy could, in principle, be brought under FPR 4.4, but refused it on the facts.

• Financial remedies
• Nullity of marriage
• Bigamy
• Ex turpi causa
• Strike out applications
• Public policy in family law

Read case analysis

Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2020] EWHC 2522 (QB) (25 September 2020)

An appeal over arrest for alleged fraud-related conduct was allowed in part: the High Court held the arrest was unlawful because necessity for arrest was not made out.

• Wrongful arrest
• False imprisonment
• Trespass
• Police powers
• Reasonable suspicion
• Necessity for arrest

Read case analysis

Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2020] EWHC 2522 (QB) (25 September 2020)

Appeal over wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and trespass dismissed. The High Court held the arrest was lawful because officers had reasonable suspicion and necessity.

• Wrongful arrest
• False imprisonment
• Trespass
• Reasonable suspicion
• Necessity for arrest
• Ex turpi causa

Read case analysis

Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Appeal from dismissal of claims for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and trespass allowed. The High Court held the arrest was unlawful because necessity for arrest was not reasonably shown.

• Wrongful arrest
• False imprisonment
• Trespass
• Police powers
• Reasonable suspicion
• Necessity for arrest

Read case analysis

Walsh & Ors v Greystone Financial Services Ltd

The court refused to join three negligence and deceit claims against Greystone into one trial, finding separate trials fairer and less prejudicial to the claimants.

• Negligence
• Deceit
• Vicarious liability
• Ex turpi causa
• Case management
• Joinder of trials

Read case analysis

Walsh & Ors v Greystone Financial Services Ltd

Walsh & Ors v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 3918 (Ch) (18 December 2018)

The High Court refused Greystone’s bid for a single trial of three related negligence and deceit claims, holding that separate trials avoided unfair prejudice.

• Joinder of claims
• Case management
• Vicarious liability
• Ex turpi causa
• Negligence
• Deceit

Read case analysis