판결 이유
The defence of illegality does not automatically bar a claim for unjust enrichment where money was paid pursuant to an illegal agreement that was not performed. The court should consider the policies underlying the illegality defence.
사실관계
Mr Patel paid Mr Mirza £620,000 to bet on share price movements using inside information. The insider dealing did not take place. Mr Patel sought return of his money.
판결 요약
The Supreme Court held that Mr Patel was entitled to recover his money. The trio of considerations approach was adopted: (1) the underlying purpose of the prohibition, (2) other relevant public policies, and (3) proportionality.
주요 인용문
"One cannot become the owner of property through the commission of a crime, but a person who has paid money under an illegal contract is entitled to its return."
— Lord Toulson
후속 처리
Replaced the previous rule-based approach to illegality with a range-of-factors approach.