Seldom has an area of law been so afflicted with uncertainties and contradictions as the illegality defence and rarely have judicial opinions been so sharply divided as in the Supreme Court decision in Patel v Mirza where nine Justices examined the issue of the correct approach to the illegality defence. Six of them endorsed the ‘range of factors’ approach, whereas three condemned it. This paper defends the majority’s approach against the minority’s criticisms but argues that refinements should be made to it in order to address the uncertainty that may arise from its application.
Ernest Lim, Ex Turpi Causa: Reformation not Revolution, Modern Law Review. First published: 6 September 2017. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12293.