Beaumont v Ferrer - an Update on the application of ex turpi causa principle by Personal Injury Law Barrister Sharan Sanghera
21st July 2016
Sharan Sanghera examines the Court’s decision finding that two claimants were precluded by the ex turpi causa principle from recovering damages in Joseph Thomas Beaumont & Lewis O’Neill v David Ferrer [2016] EWHC Civ 768.
Please find Sharan’s update below.
Related News
-
3PB's commercial disputes and data protection barrister Mariya Peykova appeared for Volkswagen Group UK in Birmingham in the case of Smith v Volkswagen Group before HHJ Emma Kelly. Mariya was instructed by Shoosmiths LLP. The claimant alleged manufacturing design faults in her car which she had bought seven years earlier. Mariya successfully applied for an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) after a Deputy District Judge had earlier ruled against the claimant and awarded costs to...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers is delighted to confirm another strong set of results for its Crime and Regulatory Crime team in Chambers and Partners’ 2026 edition published today. While the team retains its Band 1 ranking for Crime in the Western Circuit, with 9 of its practitioners ranked in this area of law; and maintains its 3 individual rankings for Health and Safety in the same Circuit, it welcomes a new ranking for Financial Crime in the...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers’ (3 Paper Buildings) specialist construction law barrister, mediator and arbitrator Paul Newman is set to speak at this year’s UKA Annual Adjudication Conference, taking place in London later this week (Wednesday 17 December 2025). The full-day conference brings together professionals from across the industry to offer insight into important topics surrounding construction and engineering adjudication. Paul will be joining an esteemed panel of experts, including panel moderator Ryan Turner (Atkin Chambers), Charles Brown...
Continue reading -
3PB criminal law barrister Nate Lara (pictured here) has been successful in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the original sentence imposed in the Crown Court was manifestly excessive and wrong in principle. The defendant received a sentence of imprisonment of 30 months. Nate argued that despite the aggravating features the sentence was excessive, going outside the range in the relevant sentencing guidelines, without sufficient justification for doing so. Nate also argued that the court...
Continue reading
