- Cited — Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 2023-02-01
“…orm of illegality because it was neither criminal nor quasi-criminal had survived the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467; but Dr Reddy’s does not contend that Warner-Lambert has no real prospect of success on this part of its case.…”
- Cited — Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited & Anor. 2022-06-30
“…on of illegality (to which he had referred in his skeleton argument) can be ignored. This situation was different from cases like Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] AC 467.…”
- Applied — Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri 2021-05-21
“…onsidered the buyer’s defence to Lenkor’s claim for the contract price, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467. He was satisfied that Lenkor had entered into the Tripartite Agreement with the intention of committing illegal acts; and committed them in the course of perf…”
- Approved — Dhillon v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor 2020-05-14
“…In my view, that did not entirely meet Mr Polli QC’s submissions on behalf of BB. In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42: [2017] AC 467, the Supreme Court was looking at a claim for restitution under an illegal agreement. At paragraph 29 of his judgment, Lord Toulson recognised and approved wha…”
- Considered — Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (Rev 1) 2020-03-26
“…Gray was considered by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] AC 467. That was a rather different case dealing with an illegal agreement based on insider trading. The principal reason for the Supreme Court’s decision was that a …”
- Followed — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…d refuse to enforce a claimant’s rights on the grounds of illegality are now established by the majority of the Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467 (“Patel v. Mirza”). Lord Toulson expressed the matter as follows:-…”
- Cited — Okedina v Chikale 2019-07-31
“…The nature of the rule has long been controversial, but the controversy has been resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467. The majority of the Court adopted an approach based on an assessment of what the public interest requires in a particular case, having regard to a range of fa…”
- Cited — Medsted Associates Ltd v Canaccord Genuity Wealth (International) Ltd 2019-02-06
“…e can see the argument. But, with respect to the judge, there is no consideration of the question in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467 and in particular of the third requirement for non-recovery (para 120 per Lord Toulson JSC) that it be a proportionate response to the illegality.…”
- Cited — Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd 2018-12-21
“…fulness arose solely from the involvement of CSD for this purpose. The defendant can certainly gain no support from the Supreme Court decision in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467. Moreover, CSD had endeavoured to serve the claim form before the expiry of the limitation date (the claim having been assigned to the claimant late in the day…”
- Cited — Rashid v Nasrullah 2018-11-29
“…er, Ms Tozer had an alternative argument based on the doctrine of illegality, which was the subject of extensive consideration in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467. That case concerned a claim for unjust enrichment when money was paid over under a contract for an illegal activity which, in the event, did not happen. But L…”
- Applied — Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust 2018-08-03
“…ty as it applies in the field of tort, as well as the impact on those authorities of the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467.…”
- Cited — Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust 2018-08-03
“…s reasoning is wholly inconsistent with the discretionary approach subsequently laid down by the majority of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467. Jay J noted, in particular, (at [89]) that neither Patel, nor any of the other Supreme Court cases in the line of authority leading to that decision, expressl…”