Research and Describe Putting Aside Tinsley vs Milligan

Justification of Patel vs Mirza (2016)
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Putting Aside Tinsley vs Milligan
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Tinsley vs Milligan which would become landmark ruling and a precedent for the next two decades. Under this ruling and in relation to the reliance test, the court argues that where a plaintiff seeks to rely on an act that is illegal to have the contract enforced, the defendant could argue illegality and his defense (Countouris, 2016). Therefore the reliance test is about a defendant relying on the aspect of illegality as defense to argue that his failure to meet his obligation was due to the illegal conduct of the plaintiff (Arizon, 2012). Although the reliance test had exceptions, it was generally the accepted way of dealing with illegal aspects within contracts and legal agreements (Hepburn, 2013). Since 1994, all other cases with similar facts have followed in the same footsteps of this decision. However, this changed recently in June 2016 in a case of Patel vs Mirza where the Supreme Court departed from the decision of Tinsley vs Milligan.
In overlooking the earlier decision of the Supreme Court that supported reliance test, the majority decision in the June 2016 case argued that the test was only reasonable if enforcing it was for the public interest. If an aspect of an agreement is illegal, allowing it to sail through would be supporting an illegality which would essentially be risky for the general public (Merkin, 2013). However, public interest cannot be considered in a blanket manner and there is need to look at issues from on a case by case basis (Frey, 2015).
Change of Heart
In a grand departure from what had been the norm, the Supreme Court argues that when a claimant has satisfactorily fulfilled the requirements of valid claim where he or she proves that there is enrichment that is unjust, then he or she will be allowed to make the claim despite existence of some illegality (Hudson, 2016). According to the Supreme Court, a claimant is protected under law to recover sums of money that were paid in an illegal agreement. However, restitution must be proven so that the intention is to return both parties and more so the claimant to their initial financial position prior to the illegal agreement (Virgo, 2015). Therefore, the intention here is to ensure that justice is served and that no party benefits from arrangement that is technically not valid in law. Under this ruling, the intention is to discourage illegal agreements by ensuring that both parties will be taken to their very initial status and that there is no unjust gain.
The court in making this ruling was cognizant of the fact that if the arrangement that had been made went through, the sole purpose of the claimant was to abuse the market (Burrows, 2012). However, even with the intention to commit an illegality, the court considers that in actual fact, that illegality was not committed. As such, no public interest was compromised and this means that allowing the defendant to keep the money from the plaintiff would be unjust.
Support of the Judgment
Having carefully studies both cases, I am in support of the decision in the Patel vs Mirza case where the earlier precedent was ove...