Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
Reconsidering the defence of illegality in unjust enrichment
Duncan Sheehan *
There is no agreement in the legal academy as to the purposes behind the illegality doctrine. Three main views are canvassed here—Jaffey’s punishment view, Virgo’s view that the effect of illegality must be minimised and Birks’ stultification view. The paper very briefly attempts to distil a distinction between obligations which are properly illegal and those which are merely void. Having done so, it suggests that a “stultification” view is appropriate and that the substantive normative disapproval of the content of the contract leading to the illegality must be given full effect. It suggests that the policies pursued by other areas of the law, such as criminal law, need to be considered, and will have an impact on when relief is available in civil proceedings. The paper concludes by examining the relationship between natural, void, and illegal obligations.
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
320