An illegal contract can affect any type of agreement or transaction.
Not all illegality associated with contracts is equal.
Serious illegality typically renders a contract void or unenforceable. Legal remedies may well be out of reach of one or more the contracting parties.
But then just because there is illegality involved with contract does not necessarily mean that a court will deprive a party or all parties of any legal remedy.
Broadly speaking, courts will not enforce a contract which is:
An illegal contract prevents claims based on a contract when a party seeks to enforce an agreement which the law prohibits. The illegality operates primarily as a defence to legal claims.
Courts will not assist a claimant to recover a benefit from their own wrongdoing.
Whether illegally taints a contract case is decided by applying series of factors against the turn of events which gave rise to the dispute, and apply to assess the seriousness illegality.
Although a breach of contract could be said to be illegal, it’s not illegal in the relevant legal sense.
Breach of contract gives rise to a civil claim: a right to damages and a series of other remedies in appropriate cases. The unlawful conduct – unlawful because it is contrary to the terms of the contract - gives rise to the breach of contract. That breach in turn gives rise to the right of the innocent party to be compensated with damages for the breach (and other remedies, depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach).
When illegality exists, the situation is different.
One or more of the parties to the contract is deprived of legal remedies if it would mean that they would benefit or profit from the illegality.
The part of the contract – one or more clauses, or the entire contract - may be found to be void or unenforceable altogether.
A breach of contract does not deprive a party to a remedy for the breach.
Serious illegality by the party claiming breach will.
Illegality in contracts arises in a number of ways.
The types of illegality can overlap with one another.
What renders a contract illegal includes:
Even when a contract is capable of lawful performance, if the agreed purpose is to do something unlawful, ignorance of the illegality does not excuse it from the illegality.
The purpose or object of the contract is to achieve some unlawful end.
The illegal purpose may be known to one or both of the parties.
The illegality does not need to appear in the wording of the contract.
It depends on a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the illegality and how the illegality relates to the main purpose of the contract.
Whether a defence of illegality is available depends on a whole series of factors.
One factor - amongst many - is whether the illegality can be removed from the contract altogether.
Illegality in one clause in a contract may be enough to taint an entire contract, if it cannot be severed from the contract to remove the illegality. The process of evaluating whether part of a contract can be removed to save the contract from illegality is known as severance.
It depends in large part on:
The main factor is whether public policy supports making the defence available.
While some countries may have an Illegal Contracts Act, that's not the case in the UK.
The law of illegality in respect of business contracts are governed by the common law. The common law takes account all statutes when assessing illegality.
So in illegality cases:
The sort of illegality (see above) which makes a contract illegal can arise through:
Contracts that contravene:
That is described in 3 main cases.
The law relating to illegality follows from pre-eminent decision of Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) which encapsulates the maxim (in italics):
The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.
If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted.
It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a [claimant]. So if the [claimant] and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the [claimant], the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis [where both parties are in the wrong and the claimant can only succeed upon reliance of an illegal act, the position of the defendant is better]
The reference to ex turpi causa by Lord Mansfield describes the standard of illegality which must be met for a claim for public policy illegality to be sustained.
Another frequently cited case is Weld-Blundell v Stephens (1920) where Lord Wrenbury said:
It has, I think, long been settled law that if an act is manifestly unlawful, or the doer of it knows it to be unlawful, as constituting either a civil wrong or a criminal offence, he cannot maintain an action for contribution or for an indemnity against the liability which results to him therefrom.
And not any old illegal activity will do to render an agreement illegal.
In Saunders v Edwards (1987) Lord Justice Bingham said:
[…] it is unacceptable that the Court should, on the first indication of unlawfulness affecting any aspect of a transaction, draw up its skirts and refuse all assistance to the plaintiff, no matter how serious his loss or how disproportionate his loss to the unlawfulness of his conduct.
Whether the illegality is sufficient to trigger legal consequences of illegality depends on the facts of the case: ie what happened and the law that made the contract illegal.
The seriousness of the illegality plays a part, along with the knowledge of the parties when the contract was made.
There are at least 3 possible outcomes from illegal agreements.
The overall effect of illegality is that courts will not lend assistance to a party to litigation by granting a remedy to a party to allow a benefit from illegal conduct. The outcome is usually that the contract is illegal and:
When a contract is void, it is deemed to have never existed, just like in cases where rescission is ordered.
The parties are put in the position they would have been if they had never entered into the illegal agreement. From a legal perspective that’s the position which they should always have been in due to the illegality.
Illegal contracts are declared void to restore the position the parties to the position they should have been in the first place: they never should have entered into the contract in the first place. To do otherwise undermines the Rule of Law and the civil justice system.
Unenforceable contracts on the other hand are agreements where the contract is seen (at law) to have existed, but no remedy will be granted. The contract remains in force.
It's just that courts will not make any order to enforce what would otherwise be enforceable legal rights.
The difference between a void agreement and an unenforceable contract can be significant.
For example, ownership of property might have passed under the contract.
With a void agreement, the transfer of ownership of property is reversed (such as with rescission).
If a court finds that an agreement is unenforceable and no remedy is to be granted, then the property transferred under the agreement lies where it falls. There is no reversal of ownership rights.
Transfers of property are not reversed. It remains owned by the party that that received it under the contract because the party cannot obtain a remedy. That could be money, land, moveable property (aka chattels) and/or incorporeal rights, such as intellectual property rights.
Back to the types of illegality:
Contracts which are illegal for public policy reasons – aka common law illegality - can become tainted by illegality in an infinite number of ways.
It’s the harm that would be done to the public interest which is assessed by reference to the facts of the particular case.
It used to be that court used a rule-based approach to assess illegality arising from public policy, and the consequences which should follow from it.
Now, it’s a factors-based approach.
The series of factors are taken into account to assess:
In Patel v Mirza (2016) the Supreme Court said that the factors to assess illegality and the consequences of it are:
The underlying purpose of that law - the prohibited conduct – is assessed to identify precisely what it was that was illegal.
The prohibition implemented by statute (say the Competition Act) or recognised at common law (say the common law of bribery) may have come about to:
The assessment of competing public policies is required because an overly simplistic or narrow-minded approach may render important public policy objectives ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim or success of the claim.
The more serious or deliberate the illegality, the more hardened the approach a court is likely to be to deny remedies.
The criminal courts are there to punish criminal conduct on behalf of society: fine and penalties are imposed on behalf of society.
On the other hand, civil courts enforce private rights.
Civil court cases result in financial compensation and other remedies to recognise those rights: the private interests of members of the society are recognised. It’s required for society to function.
All illegal conduct is serious. Some crimes are more serious than others. Those involving fraud - wilful deception - are at the top of the list.
If a legal claim or defence is to be denied, it should be a proportionate response to the unlawful activity, taking account of factors such as:
The overarching objective of the assessment is to prevent people acting unlawfully from profiting from their own wrongdoing, and for the civil law to remain consistent with the criminal law.
A particular standard needs to be met for a contract to be tainted by common law illegality.
Ex turpi causa is an abbreviation for the full form of the legal maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur action. It means “no disgraceful action may ground an action”.
The legal policy implemented ex turpi causa is encapsulated in Holman v Johnson (1775) (see above).
In brief, ex turpi causa:
While different people may have different views on what is bad or unacceptable behaviour, it typically involves an element of deception: fraud in all of its forms, no matter how it might be dressed up.
It’s that quality that drags what you and I may think of bad behaviour down to the standard of serious immorality and subsequent illegality for the purpose of contract law.
It’s that sort of immorality that the interests of society – public policy - overrides the private party contractual interests in disputes.
In the Supreme Court decision, Patel v Mirza (2016):
An investor had paid £620,000 to a stockbroker.
The stockbroker was to use the money to bet on the movement of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland on the stock market, using inside information that was to be obtained: insider trading. It’s a type of contract illegal by statute.
Insider trading is a criminal offence.
The inside information never materialised, and the money was never used to buy stocks and shares. The planned insider trading never took place.
The illegal scheme was ultimately not carried out.
The investor sued the stockbroker for return of the money. When the stockbroker refused to return the money, the investor sued for its return.
The Supreme Court ended up ordering the stockbroker to return the money to the investor.
The investor did not carry through with the plan. For that reason, it was not against the public interest to allow the investor to recover money paid over, although the money was paid for an illegal purpose.
The illegal purpose of the contract was had not been performed.
There are several morals to the story:
Restoring the parties to the position which they were in before the unlawful agreement fulfilled the legal policy considerations lying behind the doctrine of illegality in that case.
A claimant agreed to set fire to motor cars for the defendant for the purpose of making insurance claims for the vehicles for payment.
The claimant was arrested and detained. Bail conditions were set in place.
The claimant sued the other contracting party for payment of the amount agreed.
The agreement was illegal, and the arrest and jail time resulted from the main purpose of the agreement. It involved serious illegality: it was a conspiracy to defraud an insurance company. The claimant was not entitled to recover the amount agreed to be paid.
Statutory illegality arises in two different ways:
Statutory illegality can arise in at least 3 ways. For example a statute could:
When parties nevertheless do so, the contract is usually void for illegality. The rationale is that Parliament intended to outlaw the type of agreement, and legal effect is given to that intention by courts.
The legislative provision may also provide that the entire type of contract or some particular term, is unenforceable by one or other party, rather than outlaw it altogether.
Also, a statute can:
When that happens, the contract is prohibited.
It does not necessarily follow that the contract is void or unenforceable by both parties.
It might only be enforceable by one of the parties. For one party it is enforceable, and for the other party it might be unenforceable.
Thus it is possible that a type of contract may to be prohibited by statute, but the contract remains valid and enforceable.
The contract of insurance or banking services entered into by the unauthorised insurance company is usually void.
It’s void in the sense that the contract is deprived of any legal effect. That’s not to say that insured would be necessarily precluded from recovering premiums paid for insurance coverage.
Contracts of employment are governed by precisely the same law as business contracts.
They can be void, unenforceable and legal remedies may be available despite the illegality.
Accordingly, performing a contract of employment and committing an illegal or immoral act will not by itself destroy an employment contract unless:
When an illegal employment contract has been made and an employee makes an unfair dismissal claim (which is a statutory right), there are two at least two competing public policy objectives. They include:
In employment contracts, knowledge of the facts and participation by the employee in the illegality are minimum requirements for the employee to be deprived of their employment rights.
Contracts known as “zero hours contracts” are typically agreements where an individual or another company agrees to be paid for actual hours worked and:
Zero hours contracts aren’t contracts of employment. They’re consultancy agreements. There is no employment relationship.
These types of contracts haven’t been outlawed by Parliament, and so of themselves are valid and enforceable unless there is something else that interferes with their illegality (see above).
By default they’re valid and lawful agreements due to the principals of freedom of contract.
The possibilities for the consequences of an illegal contract now rides on what is essentially a reasoned value judgment based on the particular circumstances of the illegality, the law that has been offended, the other factors to assess what the outcome should be.
The consequences of illegality include the possibilities of:
Illegality comes in all shapes and sizes, and any arise in any number of ways.
A provision in a contract which is illegal potentially taints the entire contract.
And the illegality does not need to appear in the contract itself.
It can operate outside the contract, however informally reached or how the parties to the contract actually refer to it or label it. For example, payments might be labelled an “introductory fees”, “service fees” or “maintenance fees”, but be bribes.
Contracts susceptible of being found illegal include the following.
irrespective of how it might be dressed up
Contracts are illegal or become illegal for all sorts of reasons.
Courts do not give effect to illegal transactions or rights arising from them and it defeats private rights when the claimant:
Rights and remedies sometimes lie around the peripheries of the illegality.
Courts have power to revise transactions despite the illegality if it would mean that a profit or wrongdoing would remain in place. The case law paves the way for recovery of benefits conferred under an illegal contract.
Contract illegality can arise in all sorts of ways.
Major differences can result from whether a contract is void agreement or just unenforceable. The difference adds complexity to an already difficult task of assessing your legal position, your rights and your potential liability.
Need a solicitor to advise you on a contract which you suspect - or know - is illegal?
Once we're engaged, legal professional privilege applies to our communications with you. We give confidential legal advice on illegality arising in the context of contract law, that is the civil law: we're not criminal lawyers, although we do know some good ones.
If you're having trouble working out the consequences of illegality in a contract, or whether its available as a defence to a legal claim, we're available to advise you.
It may be that something might be recovered despite the illegality from the situation.
If you need commercial legal advice from a law firm that advises on businesses disputes, call us on +44 20 7036 9282 or email us at contact@hallellis.co.uk.