Case
Malayan Law Journal Reports/1953/Volume 1/BERENGER v ROZARIO (MW) - [1953] 1 MLJ 239 - 1 July 1953
2 pages
[1953] 1 MLJ 239
BERENGER v ROZARIO (MW)
OCJ SINGAPORE
WHITTON, J
SUIT NO 1033 OF 1952
1 July 1953
Contract -- Illegal and immoral contract -- Motor car -- Conversion -- Immoral association -- Public policy
As a general rule a man's right to possession of his own chattels will be enforced against one who, without any claim of right, is detaining them, or has converted them to his own use, even though it may appear from the pleadings, or in the course of the trial, that the chattels in question came into the defendant's possession by reason of an illegal contract between himself and the plaintiff, provided that the plaintiff does not seek, and is not forced, either to found his claim on the illegal contract, or to plead its illegality in order to support his claim.
Editorial Note
No action can be brought for the purpose of enforcing an illegal contract either directly or indirectly, or of recovering a share of the proceeds of an illegal transaction, by any of the parties to it. Where the object of a contract is illegal the whole transaction is tainted with illegality, and no right of action exists in respect of anything arising out of the transaction. In such a case the maxim In pari delicto, portior est conditio defendentis applies, and the test for determining whether an action lies is to see whether the plaintiff can make out his claim without relying on the illegal transaction to which he was a party. Halsbury 2nd Ed. Vol. VII p. 173.
Case referred to
Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd (1945) 1 KB 65; (1944) 2 All ER 579
1953 1 MLJ 239 at 240
CLAIM FOR CHATTELS WRONGLY DETAINED
NN Leicester for the plaintiff.
David Marshall for the defendant.
WHITTON, J
The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the judgment.
The plaintiff met the defendant, a married woman who had been separated from her
2 pages
[1953] 1 MLJ 239
BERENGER v ROZARIO (MW)
OCJ SINGAPORE
WHITTON, J
SUIT NO 1033 OF 1952
1 July 1953
Contract -- Illegal and immoral contract -- Motor car -- Conversion -- Immoral association -- Public policy
As a general rule a man's right to possession of his own chattels will be enforced against one who, without any claim of right, is detaining them, or has converted them to his own use, even though it may appear from the pleadings, or in the course of the trial, that the chattels in question came into the defendant's possession by reason of an illegal contract between himself and the plaintiff, provided that the plaintiff does not seek, and is not forced, either to found his claim on the illegal contract, or to plead its illegality in order to support his claim.
Editorial Note
No action can be brought for the purpose of enforcing an illegal contract either directly or indirectly, or of recovering a share of the proceeds of an illegal transaction, by any of the parties to it. Where the object of a contract is illegal the whole transaction is tainted with illegality, and no right of action exists in respect of anything arising out of the transaction. In such a case the maxim In pari delicto, portior est conditio defendentis applies, and the test for determining whether an action lies is to see whether the plaintiff can make out his claim without relying on the illegal transaction to which he was a party. Halsbury 2nd Ed. Vol. VII p. 173.
Case referred to
Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd (1945) 1 KB 65; (1944) 2 All ER 579
1953 1 MLJ 239 at 240
CLAIM FOR CHATTELS WRONGLY DETAINED
NN Leicester for the plaintiff.
David Marshall for the defendant.
WHITTON, J
The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the judgment.
The plaintiff met the defendant, a married woman who had been separated from her