K v P: ChD 1993

The court considered when orders might be made under the Act for a contribution to be made to damages payable. Ferris J said: ‘In my judgment the ex turpi causa defence is not available as an answer to a claim for contribution under the Act of 1978. The specific purpose of that Act, as of the Act of 1935 before it, was to enable claims for contribution to be made as between parties who had no claim to contribution under the general law. To permit the ex turpi causa defence to be relied upon as an answer to such a claim would, in my view, narrow to a substantial extent the deliberately wide wording of section 6(1) of the Act of 1978 and would, in effect, make a claim for contribution subject to a condition precedent which is not to be found in the Act. Moreover, section 2(1) and (2) give the court ample power to fix the amount of the contribution at a level, including a zero level, which takes account of all the factors which, in relation to common law claims, are relevant to the ex turpi causa defence.’


Ferris J


[1993] Ch 140


Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGreat North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited QBD 30-Oct-2003
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty.
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.187297