英国法上作为抗辩事由之原告违法的限制论

The Limitation of Illegality Defence in Tort of UK

如何对作为侵权责任抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制始终是普通法上的一个重要问题。为此,英国司法上出现了违法类型论、依赖原则论、关联论、立法目的论、公共良心测试论等诸多认识。2009年英国法律改革委员会提出应当将侵权法上的原告违法抗辩问题的改革任务继续留给法院,但此后的法院判决却动摇了对司法的信心,学说认为仍然需要立法的指引。对作为抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制问题的实质是公共利益与私人利益之间的平衡,因此,应当从原被告之间的关系以及原告的违法行为与公共利益之间的关系两个维度进行考量。侵权法上的原告违法之抗辩与违法行为(合同)的效力、不法原因给付的返还等问题之间具有实质相似性,应予一体把握。

How to limit the illegality defence in torts has always been an important issue in UK.To this end,there have been emerged many kinds of understandings in the British judiciary,such as the classification of illegal types,the theory of reliance principle,the theory of proximate cause,the theory of legislative intention,and the test of public conscience.In 2009,the Law Commission proposed that the reform task of the plaintiff’s illegality defense in torts be left to the court.However,the subsequent court decisions has shaken scholars’confidence in the judiciary and made them believe that legislation is still needed.The essence of the restriction of the plaintiff’s illegality defense is the balance between the public interest and the private interest.Therefore,it should be considered in the two dimensions of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and that between the plaintiff’s illegal behavior and the public interest.The effect of illegality on contracts,performance based on illegal reasons and illegality defence in tort are issues with substantial similarities and should be dealt with together in an integrated way.