wrote in message
...
I believe there is a law which states something along the lines of a
legal right cannot be established by committing an illegal act. Can
anybody give me a link or similar please?
pete
--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/


Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. I don't know how it translates into
Woolfspeak (Lord Woolf reckoned that we should all stop using Latin
forthwith) but you can google for it or look it up in Wikipedia.

There is another maxim: he who comes to Equity must come with clean hands.
I'm not sure in what context that would be invoked.

wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:25:04 +0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I believe there is a law which states something along the lines of a
legal right cannot be established by committing an illegal act. Can
anybody give me a link or similar please?
pete
--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/


Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. I don't know how it translates into
Woolfspeak (Lord Woolf reckoned that we should all stop using Latin
forthwith) but you can google for it or look it up in Wikipedia.

There is another maxim: he who comes to Equity must come with clean hands.
I'm not sure in what context that would be invoked.

Would the second one apply to someone defending too? Such as someone
who has unlawfully gated a Foot Path and then claimed no one used it
with a vehicle since he put the gates up? Thanks for the information
Todal.
pete

If that is the situation, then I wouldn't have thought that going in to
ex turpi causa and coming to equity with clean hands etc is necessary -
surely there is a more straightforward action be obstructing a public
right of way (or similar)?

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:40:07 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

If I recall correctly this is a public footpath and the effect of the gate
was not to obstruct foot passengers but only to foreclose handicapped
access - the "vehicle" in this case was a wheelchair.

Tony

I thought one was not allowed to discriminate against disabled people
these days.

--
Alasdair.

Alasdair wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 17:40:07 +0000, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

If I recall correctly this is a public footpath and the effect of
the gate was not to obstruct foot passengers but only to foreclose
handicapped access - the "vehicle" in this case was a wheelchair.

Tony

I thought one was not allowed to discriminate against disabled people
these days.

no, it just requires a little more thought (and preferably a nice inclusive
'mission statement' framed on the wall)