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
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Government publishes strategy to tackle child sexual abuse
The Home Secretary has published a new strategy to protect children from child sexual abuse.The strategy sets out the government’s vision for preventing, tackling and responding to child sexual...
A system that re-abuses victims is not a system fit for purpose
You don’t get four conjoined domestic abuse cases heard speedily by the President in the Court of Appeal - in the middle of a pandemic upending the family justice system - when just a few...
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory reports on private law applications​
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has published a report on private law cases in England and Wales. The report 'Uncovering private family law: Who’s coming to...
The Family Solutions Initiative – a response to a system in crisis
The Family Solutions Group (‘FSG’) report, entitled What about me?: Reframing Support for Families following Parental Separation leaves us in no doubt as to the problems which are...
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