The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Joyce v O'Brien & Tradex Insurance Company Ltd was delivered on 17 May 2013. The decision of Lord Justice Elias, Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Ryder in this case was to confirm the first ruling: a plaintiff cannot sue for damages for injuries caused by another when both were part of a joint criminal enterprise. First, let's look at the facts of the case. The appellant (nephew) and the accused (uncle) stole a set of ladders. The length of the stairs meant that they could not fully fit into the back of the getaway vehicle, in this case a van, and as a result, the doors could not close. The nephew then stood in the back of the van with an open door holding up the stairs while the uncle drove recklessly to escape the scene. The uncle was followed and a witness explained that, in addition to the dangerous driving and sharp turns, the nephew lost his balance, fell from the van and suffered serious head injuries. The uncle continued to drive the van, dumped the stairs in a side street and returned to help his nephew. This latter action was deemed to confirm that both men were part of a joint criminal enterprise and the negligence claim was not upheld due to the ex turpi causa doctrine. The question raised in this case is whether ex turpi applies? Was the defendant negligent? Is it moral for a plaintiff to seek damages for injuries sustained as part of a joint criminal enterprise? To understand that the decision was correct, I must first explain the law of negligence and ex turpi causa. Negligence To successfully bring a negligence claim, four elements must be satisfied: duty of care (DoC), breach of duty (BoC), causation and ha......half of the document......from their crime, shown in Murphy v Culhane4. This principle is less significant in tort law because, in general, tort law is concerned with compensating loss rather than obtaining gains from the claimant. However, in the compensation claim, it can be applied to prevent the claimant from being relieved of the consequences of his crime. The proportionality test aims to see whether the decision taken is proportionate to the harm caused. This is demonstrated in Lane v Holloway5. The public conscience test seeks to see whether it would offend the public if the courts accepted the request. Shown in the case of Thackwell v Barclays Bank Plc6. This was later rejected in favor of the reliance test shown in Tinsley v Milligan7. The statutory influence test examines whether other areas of law that may conflict with ex turpi causa as shown in Revill v Newbery8. These tests show that ex turpi causes non non un