GRAY V THAMES TRAINS LTD. (2009)

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd. (2009)

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd. (2009)

1) How did the lordships apply the principles of EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO and public policy to claimant's claim?

“Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio” is a legal principle that one deliberately engaged in an illegal activity may NOT claim damages arising out of that activity. Therefore, an illegal contract is unenforceable. An example is, an injury suffered by a passenger in a stolen car, which that passenger knew to be stolen and was a free participant in the joyriding. If a vehicle crashes injuring the passenger, there may be no action in tort against the driver under the ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio principle.

A person who, as a result of a railway accident, suffered post-traumatic stress disorder which led him to kill someone, could not, as part of his claim for damages in negligence against the train operators responsible for the accident, recover damages for loss of earnings following his detention after the killing in prison, and subsequently in hospital under ss 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The House of Lords so held in allowing an appeal by the defendants, Thames Trains Ltd and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtrack plc) from the order of the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Tuckey, Smith LJJ) [2008] EWCA Civ 713; [2009] 2 WLR 351 allowing an appeal by the claimant, Kerrie Francis Gray, against the ruling of Flaux J [2007] EWHC 1558 (QB) that his conviction for manslaughter precluded a claim for loss of earnings during his detention by reason of the public policy expressed in the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

“The lordships used the priniciple of “EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO” in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd, the case in which the claimant's claim is founded upon his own criminal or immoral act. The facts which give rise to the claim must be inextricably linked with the criminal activity. It is not sufficient if the criminal activity merely gives occasion for tortious conduct of the Defendant.” (Prager, 2009)

It is rare that the higher courts consider questions of ex turpi causa. The facts of this case were tragic. The Claimant had been involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster on 5th October 1999, and, although not seriously physically injured, had developed severe post traumatic stress disorder as a result. He underwent a significant personality change, becoming socially withdrawn and anxious, suffering from angry outbursts and shunning physical contact (Prager, 2009).

Damages are not usually recoverable where the breach of duty in respect of which an action is brought arises out of an illegal transaction or other unlawful act or activity. This principle is traditionally expressed by the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no right of action arises from a shameful cause). This is essentially a principle of public policy. So, for example, in Ashton ...