Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVirgo, Graham
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-17T12:02:11Z
dc.date.available2016-11-17T12:02:11Z
dc.date.issued2016-10-03
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/261185
dc.descriptionThis 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/ttw183en
dc.description.abstractThe 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.isoenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.title$\textit{Patel v Mirza}$: one step forward and two steps backen
dc.typeArticleen
prism.publicationNameTrusts & Trusteesen
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.6354
pubs.declined2017-10-11T13:54:41.593+0100
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-09-12
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/tandt/ttw183en
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2100-01-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record