Joyce v O'Brien [2013] EWCA Civ 546

Facts

  • The claimant, Joyce, and the defendant, O’Brien, jointly committed theft of building materials from a building site.
  • Following the theft, O’Brien drove a van as the two attempted to escape the scene.
  • During the getaway attempt, Joyce fell from the moving van and sustained serious injuries.
  • Joyce brought a negligence claim against O’Brien, alleging negligent driving.
  • At trial, the judge recognized the joint illegal enterprise but found O’Brien’s alleged recklessness fell outside its scope, giving rise to a potential duty of care.
  • The defendant appealed this finding to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether a claimant engaged in a joint illegal enterprise can recover damages for injuries sustained during the commission of a crime.
  2. Whether O’Brien’s allegedly reckless driving constituted conduct fundamentally different from the agreed-upon illegal act, affecting the application of ex turpi causa.
  3. Whether foreseeability of injury, within the context of a joint illegal enterprise, influences liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that ex turpi causa non oritur actio barred recovery, as the claimant’s injuries were directly connected to the joint illegal activity.
  • O’Brien’s act of driving the getaway van was not fundamentally different from the theft; it was a necessary part of the crime.
  • The risk of injury was foreseeable and a natural consequence of the circumstances of the illegal enterprise.
  • The court refused to allow damages for injury sustained in the course of a joint illegal enterprise, dismissing the claim.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precludes recovery of damages where harm arises from the claimant’s participation in illegal activity.
  • Liability may be excluded if the claimed loss results directly from acts within the scope of a joint illegal enterprise.
  • The court will assess whether the act causing injury was fundamentally different from the agreed-upon criminal activity.
  • Foreseeability of injury is relevant; voluntary involvement in a criminal activity with natural risks bars recovery.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that parties engaged in joint illegal enterprises cannot recover damages for injuries sustained in the course of crime if the injury is sufficiently connected to the illegal act. The ex turpi causa doctrine was applied to uphold public policy and deter unlawful behavior, thereby dismissing the claimant’s negligence claim.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal