The Effect Of An Illegal Contract

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00625.x
Date01 July 1960
Published date01 July 1960
JULY
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
451
impeccable reasoning of Lord Parker
C.J.,
is to sue her father for
damages in a Greek court of competent jurisdiction, hope to be
awarded a final judgment
for
a
sum certain in money and
to
enforce
that judgment in England. There seems to be every prospect that
she could now prevail over any defence in the enforcement action
that English law knows of no such action for damages.
P.
R.
H.
WEBB.
THE EFFECT
OF
AN
ILLEGAL
CONTRACT
THE decision of the Privy Council in
Singh
V.
Alil
is of some
importance. This is not the first case in which a court has said
that property in goods passes
to
the buyer under an illegal contract
of
sale, but
it
is the first time that the contrary has been argued
before the court.2
Regulations dating from
1945
provided that no person should
“sell,
. . .
part with the possession of, purchase,
.
,
.
or
take
possession of any motor vehicle without a permit in writing,” and
that no person should use a goods vehicle,
or
permit
it
to be used,
without a haulage permit issued to the user.
S.
owned
a
lorry and
obtained a haulage permit in his own name. He sold the lorry to
A.
without obtaining a permit authorising the sale.
As
A. could
not obtain a haulage permit the lorry was registered and operated
in
S.’s
name, in breach
of
the express conditions in
S.’s
haulage
permit.
As
Lord Denning said:
“All
this method of operation
was quite illegal.
.
. .
The two of them were fellow conspirators
engaged in practising a deceit on the public administration
of
the
country.”
A.’s
solicitors applied
for
the issue of a fresh haulage permit in A.’s name. Thereupon
S.
seized the lorry whilst A. was away from home.
A.,
who had mean-
while failed to secure
a
haulage permit, sued
S.
in detinue, claiming
the return of the vehicle
or
its value. A. succeeded in the Malayan
Court of Appeal, and the decision awarding
A.
damages representing
the value of the lorry was affirmed by the Judicial C~mrnittee.~
Some years later
S.
and A. fell out.
In Lord Denning’s words:
‘‘
In order to succeed in detinue,
it
was essential for
[A.]
to
show that he had the right to immediate possession of the lorry
[1960]
1
W.L.R.
180; [1960]
1
All
E.R.
269; sub nom. Sajan Singh
v.
Sandara
Ali.
The Board comprised Lords Cohen, Denning and Jenkins.
2
Of
the
four
case8 referred to in the Board’s advice to the Head of the Federation
of
Malaya, two are relevant on this point:
Sca.rfe
v.
Morgan (1838)
4
M.
&,
W.
270
(Ct:
of
Ex.)
and
Bowmakem, Ltd.
v.
Barnet Instruments,
Ltd.
[1945]
K.B.
65
(C.A.). In neither was the point argued (see
4
M.
&
W.
at p.
274;
[1945]
K.B.
at
p.
70).
3
An alternative claim for a declaration that A was the owner
of
the vehicle could
not siicceed because A could not show that there was a haulage permit
authorisin%
him
to
use
the
vehicle
([1960]
1
All
E.R.
at
p.
278).
Apparently
this
was
ecause A asked
for
a
declaration that he was the omner
of
an
authorised
vehicle
(ibid.
p.
272).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT