- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Delaney v Pickett & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff suffered severe head injuries and brain damage in a high-speed motor collision on 25th November 2006, when the Defendant negligently drove a sports car head-on into an oncoming vehicle. The Plaintiff was a front seat passenger and lost nine weeks of memory following the accident. Despite serious injuries and a bleak prognosis, the Plaintiff's claim for damages against the Defendant and against the insurer under the Uninsured Drivers Agreement was dismissed by the trial judge on grounds of the ex turpi causa defence and public policy, based on findings that the journey was for the collection and transportation of illegal drugs. The Plaintiff was found to have been in possession of a significant quantity of cannabis, jointly with the Defendant, and the insurer successfully relied on an exclusion clause in the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement. Permission to appeal was granted to consider the extent of the ex turpi causa defence and the interpretation of the insurance agreement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the ex turpi causa defence due to involvement in criminal activity related to the possession and transportation of illegal drugs.
- The proper interpretation and application of clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement, specifically whether the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of a crime, thus excluding insurer liability.
- Whether the Plaintiff knew or ought to have known before or during the journey that the vehicle was being used in connection with criminal activity, as required by the insurance agreement’s exclusion clause.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff contended that the journey was a spontaneous test drive or a casual "spin" in the Defendant’s car, not a joint criminal enterprise to acquire and transport cannabis for resale.
- The Plaintiff denied knowledge of the cannabis prior to or at the start of the journey and argued that the quantity of cannabis could have been for personal use rather than intended for supply.
- He challenged the trial judge’s inferences that the purpose of the journey was drug transportation and that he was acting in concert with the Defendant in illegal activity.
- It was submitted that the ex turpi causa defence should not apply because the injury resulted from negligent driving, not the criminal activity, and that the insurer’s exclusion clause should be narrowly interpreted to exclude liability only for serious crime involving direct use of the vehicle in the offence.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Defendant and the insurer argued that the Plaintiff was knowingly involved in a joint enterprise to acquire and transport a commercial quantity of cannabis for resale, thus engaging in serious criminal activity.
- The insurer submitted that clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement applied because the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of a crime, excluding insurer liability.
- They contended that the Plaintiff knew or ought to have known before the journey commenced that the vehicle was being used for criminal purposes.
- The ex turpi causa defence was relied upon to bar the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for damages due to the direct link between the criminal activity and the injury.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pitts v Hunt [1991] 2 QB 24 | Application of ex turpi causa defence where claimant was actively involved in dangerous illegal conduct with the defendant. | Distinguished on facts; court found no relevant nexus between the illegality and the tortious conduct causing injury here. |
| Jackson v Harrison (138 C.L.R. 438) | Distinction between illegal joint enterprises that do or do not disable the court from determining standard of care. | Referenced in analysis of whether the standard of care could be ascertained in the context of criminal activity. |
| Ashton v Turner [1981] Q.B. 137 | Use of a getaway car in a joint criminal enterprise precluding recovery for injuries caused. | Used to illustrate cases where ex turpi causa defence bars claims due to close connection between illegality and injury. |
| Saunders v Edwards [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1116 | Distinction between claims arising directly ex turpi causa and those where unlawful conduct is incidental. | Applied to determine whether the Plaintiff’s claim arose directly from criminal conduct or was incidental. |
| Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33 | Ex turpi causa as policy-based principle involving causation and public policy considerations. | Guided the court’s approach to causation and public policy in the context of ex turpi causa defence. |
| Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2002] 1 WLR 218 | Test for causation and the application of ex turpi causa where criminal activity is involved. | Used to clarify the causation test for ex turpi causa and whether damage was caused by criminal act or tortious act. |
| Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567 | Distinction between damage caused by tortious conduct and damage caused by claimant’s criminal act. | Referenced in relation to causation principles under ex turpi causa. |
| Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 | Principles of contractual interpretation including context and background. | Applied in interpreting the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement exclusion clause. |
| Evans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions and Motor Insurance Bureau Case C-63/01 | Interpretation of Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement in light of EC law and compensation rights. | Considered in construing the insurer’s obligations and exclusions. |
| White v White [2001] UKHL 9 | Interpretation of "knew or ought to have known" in the MIB Agreement and Directive context. | Guided the restrictive construction of knowledge requirement in the exclusion clause. |
| Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd v UPS Ltd [2007] UKHL 23 | Standard of appellate review of inferences of fact. | Referenced regarding appellate court’s entitlement to reconsider inferences drawn by trial judge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the factual findings and legal principles to determine the applicability of the ex turpi causa defence and the insurer’s exclusion clause. The trial judge found that the Plaintiff and Defendant were jointly in possession of a large quantity of cannabis intended for resale and that the purpose of the journey was the transportation of illegal drugs. The court considered whether these findings were supported by evidence and whether alternative explanations, such as simple possession or a spontaneous test drive, were more probable.
Ward LJ expressed doubts about the judge’s inferences, particularly the assumption that the Plaintiff knew of the criminal purpose before the journey commenced and that the cannabis was obtained during the journey. He found the Defendant’s police interview explanation plausible and criticized the lack of direct evidence supporting possession with intent to supply. Ward LJ concluded that the Plaintiff was likely in simple possession, not engaged in a joint enterprise to supply, and that the ex turpi causa defence should not bar the claim since the injury was caused by the Defendant’s negligent driving, not the criminal activity.
Richards LJ and Tomlinson LJ disagreed with Ward LJ’s factual inferences, supporting the trial judge’s conclusions that the journey was for drug transportation and that the Plaintiff was knowingly involved. They held that possession with intent to supply was a serious crime and that the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of that crime, justifying the insurer’s exclusion under clause 6(1)(e)(iii).
On the interpretation of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement, the court emphasized a restrictive construction of exceptions but recognized that the exclusion applied where the vehicle was used in the course or furtherance of serious crime. They rejected a narrow interpretation requiring the vehicle’s use to be an essential element of the offence but acknowledged that minor crimes might not engage the exclusion.
Regarding the knowledge requirement, Ward LJ found no clear finding that the Plaintiff knew of the illegal purpose before the journey, whereas Richards LJ and Tomlinson LJ accepted the trial judge’s conclusion that the Plaintiff had such knowledge. The court also considered European directives and case law, concluding that the exclusion clause must be interpreted in light of its purpose to provide compensation but allowing for exceptions in cases of serious criminal activity.
In relation to the ex turpi causa defence, the majority held that the defence barred recovery against the insurer but not against the Defendant personally, as the injury arose from negligence rather than the criminal conduct itself.
Holding and Implications
The court delivered a split decision on the appeals:
- The appeal against the Defendant was allowed, with the court holding that the ex turpi causa defence did not bar the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for damages resulting from negligent driving. The injury was caused by tortious conduct, not directly by the criminal activity.
- The appeal against the insurer was dismissed, affirming that the insurer's liability was excluded under clause 6(1)(e)(iii) of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement, as the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of a serious crime (possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis with intent to supply), and the Plaintiff knew or ought to have known of this use.
The direct effect is that the Plaintiff may recover damages from the Defendant personally but cannot recover under the insurance policy or the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreement. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the application of ex turpi causa and the interpretation of the insurance exclusion clause in the context of drug-related offences and motor vehicle accidents.
Alert