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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal