- Cited — Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited & Ors v Warner-Lambert Company LLC 2023-02-01
“…not a relevant form 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
“…The question 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
“…even Berry QC) considered 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…”
- Cited — 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 a…”
- Cited — Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (Rev 1) 2020-03-26
“…s v Kaney [2011] 2 AC 398, Lord Dyson at [113]. The same general statement of principle can be found in a number of other recent cases, including Patel v Mizra [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] 1 AC 467.…”
- 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 decis…”
- Followed — Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor 2020-03-18
“…ch a court should 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
“…o that conduct. 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 t…”
- Not followed — The Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd 2019-04-09
“…The Supreme Court has considered the principle of illegality more recently in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 where it declined to follow the decision of the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 and instead fashioned a more generalised approach to the e…”
- Cited — XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust 2018-12-19
“…This is a result of the new formulation of the law of illegality, as a bar to a civil claim, adopted by the majority of the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, a case decided well after Briody and to which Sir Robert Nelson was not referred. In my judgment, Patel gives this court a fresh opportunity to examine the “p…”
- Cited — Rashid v Nasrullah 2018-11-29
“…However, 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 no…”
- Overruled — Stoffel & Co v Grondona 2018-09-13
“…Since the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 had overruled the reliance test in Tinsley v Milligan, the basis upon which the judge had based her decision was no longer the applicable law. Accordingly, the…”
- Applied — Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust 2018-08-03
“…rine of illegality 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
“… 718, because its 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 dec…”
- Cited — Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd 2018-07-23
“…ged bribe, neither of HNA’s defences was made out because of an absence of causation or inducement and the application of the rules laid down in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 (“Patel v. Mirza”).…”
- Applied — RBRG Trading (UK) Ltd v Sinocore International Co Ltd 2018-04-23
“… of whether Sinocore’s pleaded claim relied on its own fraud. He should have applied the more flexible approach laid down by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2016] 3 WLR 399.…”
- Cited — Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd 2018-02-01
“…hould, then the secondary question is whether the customer’s claim should be barred under the three-tier test adumbrated by the Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 (“Patel v. Mirza”). There are subsidiary questions raised by the appellant bank on contributory negligence, whether the scope of the duty that it owed extended…”