Illegality after Patel v Mirza

— —

Sarah Green (University of Bristol School of Law, Bristol, UK) Alan Bogg (University of Bristol, UK)

Illegality after Patel v Mirza

Sarah Green (University of Bristol School of Law, Bristol, UK), Alan Bogg (University of Bristol, UK)

$110

Paperback

Not in-store but you can order this
How long will it take?

Availability Information

We source books from suppliers in Australia and overseas. For books we don't currently have in stock, the time it takes to get them from our suppliers can vary widely - from a few days to a few months - so we check each book with each supplier to determine the expected time it will take to be supplied to us.

We then advise you accordingly. If the time taken to get any book is too long for you, you can let us know and we will cancel or adjust your order, and refund as required.

To find out the anticipated arrival time for specific items prior to ordering, please contact us by phone or email:

Phone +61 2 9264 3111, or 1800 4 BOOKS (1800 4 26657) if outside Sydney:
option 1 Abbey's Bookshop (Crime, History, Science, Kids & more) • info@abbeys.com.au
option 2 Language Book Centre (ESL & Foreign Languages) • language@abbeys.com.au
option 3 Galaxy Bookshop (Sci-fi, Fantasy, Romance, Graphic Novels) • sf@galaxybooks.com.au

QTY:

English

Hart Publishing
29 October 2020

Restitution; Contract law; Equity & trusts; Torts Law

Series: Hart Studies in Private Law

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as ‘revolutionary’ by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed.

The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance.

This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the ‘go to’ work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

Edited by: Sarah Green (University of Bristol School of Law Bristol UK), Alan Bogg (University of Bristol, UK)
Imprint: Hart Publishing
Country of Publication: United Kingdom
Dimensions: Height: 234mm, Width: 156mm,
Weight: 572g
ISBN: 9781509943593
ISBN 10: 1509943595
Series: Hart Studies in Private Law
Pages: 408
Publication Date: 29 October 2020
Audience: College/higher education , Primary
Format: Paperback
Publisher's Status: Active

Sarah Green is Professor of Private Law at the University of Bristol. Alan Bogg is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol.

Reviews for Illegality after Patel v Mirza

The book is ... relevant to many specialist as well as generalist audiences, and deserves to find them all. -- Hector MacQueen, University of Edinburgh * Edinburgh Law Review *