When a claimant is hurt while caught up in their own serious wrongdoing — fleeing a crime, injured in a joint criminal venture — should the law still compensate them? The illegality defence (ex turpi causa) says that in some cases it should not, because allowing recovery would damage the integrity of the legal system. For a solicitor advising either side of a negligence claim, recognising when this defence bites can decide whether a claim is worth bringing or defending at all.
This lesson builds your understanding step by step, from what the defence is to how it plays out on real facts.
- The Defence and Its Effect — what the defence is and why it operates as a complete bar to recovery, with no apportionment.
- The Central Question and Framework — the single question courts ask and the three factors guiding the policy and proportionality assessment.
- Requirements and Burden of Proof — who must prove what, and the seriousness and connection requirements the defendant must establish.
- Proportionality and Distinction from Contributory Negligence — how courts weigh proportionality and why illegality is not the same as a fault-based reduction in damages.
- Evidence and Application in Practice — whether a conviction is needed, which losses can still be recovered, and how a defendant's own wrongdoing fits in.