Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
The issue was when involvement in illegality bars a claim. The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Mr Mirza’s appeal. Mr Patel is entitled to restitution of the £620,000 which he paid to Mr Mirza.
Slug : patel-v-mirza-2016-uksc-42
Meta Title : Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 3, 2016, 04:50 AM
Article ID : 112873

(Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge, 20 July 2016)

The issue was when involvement in illegality bars a claim. The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Mr Mirza’s appeal. Mr Patel is entitled to restitution of the £620,000 which he paid to Mr Mirza.

Trinity Term
[2016] UKSC 42


On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 1047



JUDGMENT




Patel (Respondent) v Mirza (Appellant)




before 




Lord Neuberger, President
Lady Hale, Deputy President
Lord Mance
Lord Kerr
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge




JUDGMENT GIVEN ON


20 July 2016




Heard on 16 and 17 February 2016




Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Practice and Procedure
Tags :
UKSC_Supreme_Court
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from