Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532

Facts

• Mr. Delaney was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Mr. Pickett.
• Both individuals were engaged in the possession and supply of cannabis at the time of a road traffic accident.
• Mr. Delaney sustained injuries and brought a negligence claim against Mr. Pickett, alleging careless driving.
• Mr. Pickett argued that the claim should be barred due to Mr. Delaney’s involvement in illegal activities.
• The trial judge initially ruled in favour of Mr. Delaney.
• The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the claimant's illegal conduct precluded recovery under the ex turpi causa doctrine.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s participation in the possession and supply of cannabis barred his civil claim for personal injury against the defendant.
2. Whether there was a sufficient connection between the illegal conduct and the injuries sustained to trigger the ex turpi causa doctrine.
3. Whether public policy required that the claim be barred to avoid incentivising criminal behaviour and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Delaney’s claim was barred under the ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine.
• It was determined that the illegal activity was not merely incidental but directly connected to the circumstances of the accident.
• The court found that permitting the claim would undermine public policy objectives and the integrity of the legal system.
• The judgment reaffirmed that claims arising from injuries sustained in the commission of a crime are generally barred when there is a sufficient nexus between the illegality and the harm.

Legal Principles

• The ex turpi causa non oritur actio doctrine prevents individuals from recovering damages for injuries sustained while engaged in unlawful conduct.
• The application of the doctrine depends on the proximity and connection between the illegal act and the harm suffered.
• Public policy considerations are central to the doctrine, aiming to discourage unlawful behaviour and maintain confidence in the legal system.
• The court assesses whether the claimant’s injury is inextricably linked to the criminal conduct, and bars claims where this connection exists.
• Previous case law, such as Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, supports the approach of denying remedies for harms stemming from criminal acts.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that civil claims for injuries suffered during the commission of a crime will be barred where there is a direct connection between the unlawful conduct and the harm, reaffirming the importance of public policy in limiting recovery and upholding the integrity of the legal system.