Patel v Mirza

Max Planck famously observed that new orthodoxies do not triumph because sceptics change their minds, but because those sceptics are eventually replaced by sympathisers.1 The recent transformation of the illegality principle in English law is a compelling example of this phenomenon. It is clear from the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v Mirza 2 that there remains an insurmountable ideological divide concerning the correct approach to private law claims arising out of illegal conduct. Nonetheless, there has been a palpable shift in support at the highest level for a “flexible” illegality principle, a shift that has now culminated in Patel.