Question: Do you agree with the reasoning in the majority`s decision in the case of Patel v Mirza (2016) 3 WLR 399 on the approach on illegality adopted in Tinsley v Milligan (1994( 1 AC 340? Why? Why not? **** Please do not write the Introduction, facts of the case, the meaning of the word illegality or the Conclusion *** An analytical view/reasoning****As much as sources as possible **Please use books, scholarly articles, any other sources to support the argument. Thank you,
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 risk...