Illegality after Patel v Mirza

In Patel v Mirza ([2016] UKSC 42), nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based.

Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court.

Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed.

This collection provides a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law.

All of the authors are well-established in their respective fields.