Fisher v Bridges (1854) 3 El & Bl 642
A covenant enacted in relation to an illegal contract is unenforceable
Facts
The defendant agreed to buy land from the plaintiff. According to the defendant, before the making of the deed, which was subject to a mortgage, the plaintiff was aware that the land would be exposed to sale and sold by way of lottery in an illegal manner contrary to statute. Part of the purchase money was unpaid by the defendant and the defendant made a covenant for payment. The plaintiff sued for payment on the basis of this covenant.
Issues
At first instance, the Queen’s Bench gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The key issue was whether the covenant was enforceable on the basis of an underlying contract which was subject to an illegality. Before the appeal court, the plaintiff argued that it was not enough that it knew that the defendant intended to make an illegal use of the purchased land; it was necessary to also show that the plaintiff also intended the land to be used illegally.
Decision/Outcome
The Exchequer Chamber reversed the judgement of the Queen’s Bench. It found that the covenant was clearly given by the defendant to secure the payment of a part of the purchase or consideration money for the lands the subject of the agreement. Accordingly, it was given as a security for payment of a debt which was tainted with illegality. Therefore, because the law would not enforce the payment of the debt, it would not enforce the payment of the security contained in the covenant because it sprung from, and was the creature of, an underlying illegal agreement.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Fisher v Bridges (1854) 3 El & Bl 642, a foundational common law authority on the unenforceability of covenants arising from illegal contracts. The principle that a security or covenant which “springs from” an illegal agreement is itself unenforceable remains good law and continues to be cited in academic and judicial treatment of the illegality doctrine.
Readers should be aware that the law of illegality in contract has been substantially developed by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, which replaced the earlier “range of factors” approach with a structured three-stage test for determining whether illegality should bar a claim. While Fisher v Bridges is not overruled, its application must now be understood within the broader framework established by Patel v Mirza. Students should treat this case as an illustration of the illegality principle rather than a self-contained statement of the modern law.
