Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341
Agreement for the sale of tea at Dunkirk valid and value of tea recoverable
Facts
The plaintiff sold and delivered a quantity of tea to the defendant knowing that the defendant intended to smuggle it into England (without paying the relevant duty). The plaintiff brought an action against the respondent for recovery of the value of the tea.
Issues
The respondent argued that in a contract for sale where the illicit intention of the buyer was within the knowledge of the seller, the seller was not entitled to the assistance of the law to recover the value of the goods. The plaintiff contended that the contract could not be said to be in violation of the laws of England because it was completed by the delivery of the goods at Dunkirk (France) where the transaction was lawful. The plaintiff submitted that it was of no concern to it what the respondent intended to do with the tea.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held for the plaintiff. The key question was whether the plaintiff’s demand was founded upon the ground of any immoral act or contract. Lord Mansfield observed that the plaintiff’s interest in the contract was completed by the delivery of goods at Dunkirk after which there is nothing left for the plaintiff to do. He concluded that the plaintiff was not guilty of any offence and noted that it would set a dangerous precedent to designate such an act as a crime. In contrast, if the plaintiff had agreed to send the tea to England he would have been an offender against English law and he would not have been able to raise an action for recovery of the value of the tea.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately describes the facts, issues, and outcome of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341. The principle established — that a claimant whose own conduct is not tainted by illegality may recover even where they are aware of the other party’s unlawful purpose — remains a foundational authority in English law on the illegality defence in contract.
Readers should be aware of significant subsequent developments. The Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 substantially reformed the law of illegality in contract and unjust enrichment. The majority adopted a range of factors approach to determining when illegality should bar a claim, moving away from the more mechanical rules previously derived from cases such as Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340. Holman v Johnson was expressly discussed in Patel v Mirza and its core principle was affirmed: a claimant who is not personally implicated in the unlawful act retains the right to sue. Lord Toulson’s judgment confirmed that the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, from which this case takes its modern significance, should be applied with regard to the purpose of the rule and the public interest, rather than rigidly.
Accordingly, while this case note remains accurate as a statement of the 1775 decision itself, students should read it alongside Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 for a complete understanding of how the illegality defence now operates in English law.
