Holman v Johnson
The classic statement that no court will lend its aid to a person who founds a cause of action on an immoral or illegal act.
Facts
Mr Holman sold tea to Mr Johnson in Dunkirk, knowing that Mr Johnson intended to smuggle it into England without paying the customs duties. The sale itself took place in France and was lawful there, and Mr Holman had no part in the smuggling. Mr Johnson did not pay for the tea, and Mr Holman sued for the price. Mr Johnson argued that the contract was unenforceable because it was connected with smuggling.
Legal principle
Lord Mansfield held that Mr Holman could recover the price, because the contract of sale was complete in France and Mr Holman had not been involved in the smuggling. Lord Mansfield set out the principle that no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. He explained that the defence of illegality is allowed not for the sake of the defendant, but on grounds of public policy, so a defendant may sometimes benefit unfairly. The principle remains the starting point for the law of illegality, now applied through the approach in Patel v Mirza.
Related cases on illegality and restraint of trade
- Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd v S Spanglett Ltd [1961] 1 QB 374
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1968] AC 269
- Fitch v Dewes [1921] 2 AC 158
- Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688
- Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2014] UKSC 55, [2015] AC 430
- Re Mahmoud and Ispahani [1921] 2 KB 716
- Mason v Provident Clothing and Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724
- Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535
Studying contract 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.
