entitled to use them, there are self contained remedies within the contracts which prohibit the Quinn family from using the excuse of illegality of contract to stop their repayments. The Court ruled in favor of the Quinn family on the basis that section 60 in the Companies Act was not clear enough in its remedies stating: 'I am not persuaded that Section 60 of the Companies Act 1963, which forbids a company from purchasing its own shares, or from offering financial assistance in that regard, is self-contained in its remedies and cannot impact on public policy. In a case such as that pleaded herein, the general law of illegality of contracts is entitled to respond in an appropriate and proportionate way so that loss caused through the manipulation of the share price of Anglo to those directly at the receiving end of that conduct, namely the Quinn's, can be appropriately responded to.” Anglo Irish Bank appealed this ruling. Holding of the Supreme Court The Court reviewed a large amount of case law when making its decision. The Supreme Court based its decision from the case of Holman v. Johnson where the court stated "no Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act". However, the Court also argues extensively about the consequences of a strict applicability of that rule and cites Les Laboratoires Servier and anor v. Apotex Inc. and ors. The Supreme Court ruled that when deciding whether the level of illegality is too high as to render it unenforceable, the Court should look to the public policy intentions of the statute in question. Regarding the Companies Act, the Court ruled that the contract was enforceable. To say otherwise could lead to a situation which is against the public policy intentions of the Companies Act. The court stated that Section 14, for example, would have no effect if every contract caught by Section 60 was to be declared unenforceable. The main objective of the Market Abuse Regulation is to protect investors from people who take advantage of the market, so it covers a wide range of topics. So, the Court found again that making illegality apply to a lot of things could make the regulation less effective than it was meant to be. The Quinn family argued that Anglo Irish Bank had sold them the shares while