Plaintiff the wrongdoer (ex turpi causa) and the plaintiff's default
LUG-101 Law of Torts including Motor Vehicle Accident and Consumer Protection Act, Unit II: Plaintiff’s default / plaintiff the wrongdoer. · LLB · 60 min
A plaintiff whose own illegal or wrongful conduct is closely bound up with the harm he suffered may be refused a remedy: ex turpi causa non oritur actio. This lecture explains the maxim and its source in Holman v. Johnson, the rule that a wrongdoer is not an outlaw (Bird v. Holbrook, Revill v. Newbery), the joint illegal enterprise cases (Pitts v. Hunt, Ashton v. Turner, National Coal Board v. England), the requirement of a close connection between the wrong and the harm, the plaintiff's own default as an exception to Rylands v. Fletcher, and the relation of the defence to contributory negligence. It answers 2025-26 Q2(a)(i).
Objectives
- Explain the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio and its basis in public policy (Holman v. Johnson).
- Show, with Bird v. Holbrook and Revill v. Newbery, that the plaintiff's wrong does not of itself bar the action.
- Apply the close-connection test to joint illegal enterprises (Pitts v. Hunt, Ashton v. Turner, NCB v. England).
- Explain the plaintiff's own default as an exception to strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.
- Distinguish ex turpi causa from volenti and from contributory negligence.
Slides
- The maxim and its basis
- A wrongdoer is not an outlaw: Bird v. Holbrook (1828)
- The close-connection test
- Joint illegal enterprise: Pitts v. Hunt (1991)
- Ashton v. Turner (1981) and National Coal Board v. England (1954)
- Revill v. Newbery (1996): the burglar who recovered
- Plaintiff's default as an exception to Rylands v. Fletcher
- Plaintiff's default and contributory negligence
- The Indian position
Loading the lecture…