Contract Law - Seminar 21 Illegality/Effects/Contracts in Restraint of trade Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 · C had given £620,000 to bet on shares in a company using inside information · Agreement C and D amounted to a conspiracy to commit the offence of insider dealing contrary to s53 Criminal Justice Act 1993 . Insider information didn't materialise, and no illegal act was committed · C sought to recover the monies claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment . D sought to argue monies shouldn't be returned to C because C would have to rely on his own unlawful conduct to establish his interest in the monies . Held C could recover monies despite them being paid to D pursuant to criminal activities · Overrules Tinsley · C will not be prevented from enforcing his claim to property because it was paid to perform an illegal act, unless allowing his claim would be contrary to relevant public policy, or would be disproportionate to allow him to recover Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47 · C was of Nigerian nationality · Came to England in 2007 ages 14 under a false identity to be granted a visitors visa for 6 months · D allowed C to stay within her home with her husband and children · D employed C even though she didn't have the right work visa - work was unpaid . D inflicted serious abuse on C and told her if she left the home she would be imprisoned · D forcibly evicted C from the home . Held in favour of C, there was an insufficiently close connection between illegality of contract and unlawful acts by D . Also held the defence rests upon aspects of public policy - the international trafficking of vulnerable people and in favour of protecting - would have been against public policy to allow D to evade liability based on illegality of employment Mohamed v Alaga [1999] 3 All ER 699 . C assisted Somali refugees to apply for asylum and residence in the UK . Alleged parole agreement with D, a firm of solicitors that he would receive half of any legal aid fees received by D in respect of immigration and asylum applications . C claimed under a contract or quantum meruit but D said claim was unenforceable as breached Solicitors Act 1974 s31 r7 . Held the Rules were subordinate legislation made in the public interest to control solicitors' conduct and the r.7 ban on solicitors sharing their feed made the contract unenforceable . Parties were not equally to blame, D knowingly disregarded the professional conduct rules and C had been unaware of impropriety of the arrangement · C's claim for a quantum meruit was reinstated
Re Mahmoud and Ispahani [1921] 2 KB 716 . Under Defence of the Realm Act 1914 an Order was made titled 'Seeds, Oils and Fats Order 1919' stated 'a person shall not ... buy or sell or otherwise deal in' linseed oil without