In recent years, courts in the U.K. and Australia have decided a number of cases_x000D_ involving the concept of illegality,2 or ex turpi causa non oritur actio.3 Several_x000D_ of these cases have focused specifically on the branch of illegality relating to joint_x000D_ illegal enterprises. Although courts in both jurisdictions have always shown greater_x000D_ willingness to refuse claims which involve joint participants in criminal ventures_x000D_ than those which do not, the actual basis for the refusal of such claims has been_x000D_ uncertain - with some judges taking the view that the very nature of the enterprise_x000D_ negates the duty of care and others concentrating on whether it is impossible to_x000D_ establish an appropriate standard of care between joint wrongdoers. This uncertainty_x000D_ was resolved in Australia by the decision of the High Court in Miller v. Miller,4 which_x000D_ rejected as artificial the "impossibility of setting a standard of care" approach, and_x000D_ effectively reverted to an approach based on duty. Given that the High Court of_x000D_ Australia has always been something of a trail-blazer where the law on joint illegal_x000D_ enterprises is concerned, the case gave rise to understandable speculation about the_x000D_ possibility of courts in other jurisdictions following suit.