dc.contributor.author Virgo, Graham dc.date.accessioned 2016-11-17T12:02:11Z dc.date.available 2016-11-17T12:02:11Z dc.date.issued 2016-10-03 dc.identifier.uri https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/261185 dc.description This is the author accepted manuscript. It is permanently embargoed to comply with the publisher’s copyright terms. The final version is available from Oxford University Press via https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttw183 en dc.description.abstract The decision of the Supreme Court in $\textit{Patel v Mirza}$ is now the leading case on the application of the defence of illegality to private law claims, which has resolved a controversy among the Justices of the Supreme Court as to whether the defence should be formulated as a rule of public policy, which applies automatically if certain conditions are met, or a discretion founded on justice to secure a fair result following careful consideration of the factual context of the case. While the decision is of specific relevance to the law of unjust enrichment, it will also be of significance to the operation of the defence to claims, both proprietary and personal, relating to a trust. But, although the nine Justices sitting in the Supreme Court sought to place the law on illegality on a secure and principled footing, the approach that has been adopted is likely to create even more uncertainty. en dc.language.iso en en dc.publisher Oxford University Press en dc.title $\textit{Patel v Mirza}$: one step forward and two steps back en dc.type Article en prism.publicationName Trusts & Trustees en dc.identifier.doi 10.17863/CAM.6354 dcterms.dateAccepted 2016-09-12 rioxxterms.versionofrecord 10.1093/tandt/ttw183 en rioxxterms.version AM en rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate 2100-01-01
﻿