References: Times 30-May-00, Gazette 08-Jun-00, [2000] 2 All ER Comm 271, [2000] EWCA Civ 160
Links: Bailii
Coram: Nourse LJ
The differences between tortious conspiracies where the underlying acts were either themselves unlawful or not, did not require that the conspiracy claim be merged in the underlying acts where those acts were tortious. A civil conspiracy to injure by unlawful means required proof of the nature of the agreement, the means alleged, the unlawful acts causing loss, and that each such act was part of the agreed purpose. The actual intent to cause injury need not be predominant.
The court defined two types of conspiracy to injure, namely conspiracy to injure by lawful means and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means: ‘A conspiracy to injure by lawful means is actionable where the claimant proves that he has suffered loss or damage as a result of action taken pursuant to a combination or agreement between the defendant and another person or persons to injure him, where the predominant purpose is to injure the claimant.
A conspiracy to injure by unlawful means is actionable where the claimant proves that he has suffered loss or damage as a result of unlawful action taken pursuant to a combination or agreement between the defendant and another person or persons to injure him by unlawful means, whether or not it is the predominant purpose of the defendant to do so.’
This case cites:
- Cited – Lonrho Ltd -v- Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL ([1982] AC 173, [1981] 3 WLR 33, [1981] 2 All R 456)
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . . - Cited – Lonrho plc -v- Fayed HL ([1992] AC 448, Guardian 28-Jun-91)
In a conspiracy, the intent to injure need not be the primary intent, but there must be some intent which involves the conspiring parties directing their minds towards the victim or a category of persons which would include the victim as a target to . . - Cited – Bourgoin SA -v- Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food CA ([1986] QB 716)
The plaintiffs were French producers of turkeys. They alleged that the Minister revoked their licence to import turkeys into this country by a decision that was ultra vires and motivated by a desire to assist British turkey producers, and that this . . - See Also – Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK & Another -v- Al Bader & Others (No 2) ComC (Unreported, 19 December 1995)
ComC Leave to serve writ outside jurisdiction under RSC Ord 11 r1(1)(c) – whether required to serve on another defendant before leave obtained – retrospective validation . . - See Also – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company S A K ; Sitka Shipping Incorporated -v- Al Bader; Qabazard and Stafford CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1318, [1997] 1 WLR 1410, [1997] 2 All ER 855, (1997) 141 SJLB 140, Times 01-Apr-97)
. . - See Also – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated -v- Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson & Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1528)
The defendants having been found to have acted dishonestly to the tune of £130,000,000 sought a stay of execution pending an appeal. The judge had found that the appeal was arguable. . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Lesotho Highlands Development Authority -v- Impregilo Spa and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1159, Times 15-Sep-03, Gazette 16-Oct-03, [2003] BLR 347, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 97, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 497)
The parties went to arbitration to resolve disputes in a construction contract. The award appeared to have been made for payment in currencies different from those set out in the contract. The question was asked as to whether the award of interest . . - Cited – Is Innovative Software Ltd -v- Howes CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 171, Times 10-Mar-04, Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 275, Gazette 01-Apr-04)
It was alleged that the defendant had backdated contracts of employment to a time when he had been employed by the claimant, and had induced staff to leave. The company appealed dismissal of its claim.
Held: The advantage of the court . . - Cited – Mahonia Limited -v- JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD ([2004] EWHC 1938 (Comm), Bailii)
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . . - Cited – Douglas and others -v- Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 595, Times 24-May-05, [2005] 4 All ER 128, [2005] 3 WLR 881, [2006] QB 125)
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . . - Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another -v- ACP Ltd and others ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 74 (Ch), Times 27-Apr-06, [2007] Ch 197, [2006] 2 P & CR 23, [2006] 3 All ER 1029, [2006] 6 EGCS 170, [2007] 2 WLR 403)
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . . - Cited – Total Network Sl -v- Customs & Excise Commissioners CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156)
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . . - See Also – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak and Another -v- Al Bader and others ComC (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 2432 (Comm))
The claimants had succeeded in an action based on fraud, and now sought to enforce their judgment. . . - Cited – Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others -v- Cable & Wireless Plc and Others ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 774 (Ch))
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . . - Cited – Law Society of England & Wales -v- Isaac & Isaac International Holdings Ltd and Others ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 1670 (Ch))
. .
