Gray v Thames Trains Ltd
A claimant cannot recover damages for losses that result from a criminal sentence imposed on him, or from his own deliberate criminal act, even if his mental state was caused by the defendant's negligence.
Facts
Mr Gray was a passenger on a train involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in 1999, caused by the defendants' negligence. He suffered minor physical injuries but developed post traumatic stress disorder, which changed his personality. Two years later, he stabbed and killed a pedestrian after a minor argument. He was convicted of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility, and was detained in a hospital. He claimed damages for his loss of earnings while he was detained, and for his feelings of guilt and remorse.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that he could not recover these losses, because of the defence of illegality. Lord Hoffmann said that there is a narrower rule that a claimant cannot recover for damage which flows from loss of liberty, a fine or other punishment lawfully imposed upon him in consequence of his own unlawful act, because it would be inconsistent for the civil law to compensate him for a penalty imposed by the criminal law. There is also a wider rule that a claimant cannot recover for loss which is the consequence of his own criminal act. Both rules applied here, although he could recover for his losses before the killing.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
- Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, [2015] 2 All ER 805
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
