Tort of Conspiracy

[marlo]

I am starting a claim based on the tort of conspiracy.
I have learnt that there are two forms of Conspiracy:

1. Lawful means conspiracy
2. Unlawful means conspiracy.

In my case unlawful means were used so I am hoping to go down that route.

I have three questions:

1. Is it necessary for the unlawful acts to have been committed by all parties to the conspiracy or is it sufficient that only one party to the conspiracy committed the unlawful act while the other parties were merely aware that an unlawful act would be perpetrated by one of the other conspirators?

2. If it is the case that it is necessary for all the parties to have committed the unlawful act rather than just one of them can I bring a case in the same claim using both lawful means conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy or should I just use lawful means conspiracy?

3. Is it necessary to state on which basis I am basing my claim? Can I simply use the term Conspiracy and bring out the fact that unlawful means were used in my Particulars of Claim or statement, or do I have to specifically state whether my claim is on the basis of Lawful means or unlawful means and if so do I do that in the Particulars of Claim?

[R0b]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

Conspiracy is one of those obscure causes of action under tort law and has six elements in order to prove unlawful means conspiracy. If you want more info, I can PM you a link to a document about unlawful means conspiracy so you can read more into it. But answering your questions briefly:

1. One of the elements is that there must be two or more persons involved, but the act itself need not be all of them. In other words, provided that one or more do the act with the intention to injure that is sufficient.

2. Not applicable as per point 1.

3. Your particulars of claim should have all of the elements for the cause of action you are claiming. So in this case, as I said above there are six elements to a tort of unlawful means conspiracy and you must explain that in your particulars. If you don't then it is liable to be struck out and/or dismissed because it will either lack sufficient detail for the defendant(s) to know their position or alternatively, you haven't satisfied those elements in your particulars to warrant the cause of action to continue.

[marlo]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

Conspiracy is one of those obscure causes of action under tort law and has six elements in order to prove unlawful means conspiracy. If you want more info, I can PM you a link to a document about unlawful means conspiracy so you can read more into it. But answering your questions briefly:

1. One of the elements is that there must be two or more persons involved, but the act itself need not be all of them. In other words, provided that one or more do the act with the intention to injure that is sufficient.

2. Not applicable as per point 1.

3. Your particulars of claim should have all of the elements for the cause of action you are claiming. So in this case, as I said above there are six elements to a tort of unlawful means conspiracy and you must explain that in your particulars. If you don't then it is liable to be struck out and/or dismissed because it will either lack sufficient detail for the defendant(s) to know their position or alternatively, you haven't satisfied those elements in your particulars to warrant the cause of action to continue.

Thanks, I would appreciate it if you could PM the link to the document about unlawful means conspiracy. I want to make sure I have everything covered before sending my Particulars.

The elements I am aware of are

1. Two or more people acting together
2. At least one of them will use unlawful means;
3. Intending to damage a third party; and
4. causing damage to that third party

What are the other two elements?
I look forward to receiving the link you mentioned
Thanks again

[R0b]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

1. as above
2. as above
3. there was knowledge of the unlawful means
4. as above but the point to note is that it's irrelevant if the intention to injure was the main reason
5. an act which is pursuant to the agreement
6. the result causes loss or damage.

I'll PM you now.

[marlo]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

1. as above
2. as above
3. there was knowledge of the unlawful means
4. as above but the point to note is that it's irrelevant if the intention to injure was the main reason
5. an act which is pursuant to the agreement
6. the result causes loss or damage.

I'll PM you now.

So when I draft my Particulars of Claim should I list each element and state how my claim conforms to each element? If so do I do this at the beginning or the end of the PoC.
So far the format of my PoC is

1. A list of the Claimants and Defendants with a brief explanation of who they are and how they are relevant to the action
2. A list of the joint and several actions perpetrated by each Defendant

I was then planning to:
3.List the various offences which have been committed in relation to each act
4. List the Particulars of Loss and Damage
5. Description of the remedies sought including costs and damages. (Should I ask for both exemplary damages and punitive damages or limit it to exemplary?)

Does this sound ok? At which point do I list the six elements and how the claim conforms if appropriate to do so?

[R0b]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

The Particulars of claim should flow so you don't need to list them or give them a heading but make sure those elements are covered somehow. There is the standard headings that you can use such as:

1. The parties
2. The agreement
3. Unlawful means conspiracy
4. Loss and damage

Taking the above, you could set it out something like below:

-------------------------------------------------------

The Parties
1. The Claimant is a .....

2. The Defendants are ....

The agreement
3. On or around [date] the Claimant entered into an agreement with the Defendants to [explain brief details of the agreement]

4. In furtherance of the agreement:

4.1 The Claimants and the Defendants [explain what you did e.g. you purchased a business or acquired services etc. but list each point separately]

Unlawful means conspiracy
5. The Defendants, with the intention to injure and [the unlawful means e.g. to defraud] the Claimant, had conspired together to [insert the unlawful means] by unlawful means.

PARTICULARS

* bullet each point separately of what the Defendants intended to do by unlawful means

6. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the Defendants participated in a series of overt acts which resulted in harming the claimant. Specifically:

* bullet point separately each of the acts done amounting to the unlawful means in relation to point 5 above.

7. Had the Defendants not carried out the acts above, the Claimant would not have [explain further]

Loss and damage
8. By reason of the matters stated above, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

* bullet separately each loss or damage as a result of the acts

9. [then refer to any interest etc. that you might want to recover]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is just a brief example of how you might set it out but as we don't know the facts of your situation, it's difficult to really go much further than that. If you are issuing a claim via MCOL then its unlikely that it will fit into the limited character box so you will need to give brief details of the claim and what its about but also tick the option to say you intend on filing detailed particulars within 14 days of issue and set it out fully.

Hope that makes sense.

[marlo]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

The Particulars of claim should flow so you don't need to list them or give them a heading but make sure those elements are covered somehow. There is the standard headings that you can use such as:

1. The parties
2. The agreement
3. Unlawful means conspiracy
4. Loss and damage

Taking the above, you could set it out something like below:

-------------------------------------------------------

The Parties
1. The Claimant is a .....

2. The Defendants are ....

The agreement
3. On or around [date] the Claimant entered into an agreement with the Defendants to [explain brief details of the agreement]

4. In furtherance of the agreement:

4.1 The Claimants and the Defendants [explain what you did e.g. you purchased a business or acquired services etc. but list each point separately]

Unlawful means conspiracy
5. The Defendants, with the intention to injure and [the unlawful means e.g. to defraud] the Claimant, had conspired together to [insert the unlawful means] by unlawful means.

PARTICULARS

* bullet each point separately of what the Defendants intended to do by unlawful means

6. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the Defendants participated in a series of overt acts which resulted in harming the claimant. Specifically:

* bullet point separately each of the acts done amounting to the unlawful means in relation to point 5 above.

7. Had the Defendants not carried out the acts above, the Claimant would not have [explain further]

Loss and damage
8. By reason of the matters stated above, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

* bullet separately each loss or damage as a result of the acts

9. [then refer to any interest etc. that you might want to recover]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is just a brief example of how you might set it out but as we don't know the facts of your situation, it's difficult to really go much further than that. If you are issuing a claim via MCOL then its unlikely that it will fit into the limited character box so you will need to give brief details of the claim and what its about but also tick the option to say you intend on filing detailed particulars within 14 days of issue and set it out fully.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm not doing it online as it doesn't fit the criteria.
Another thing I was wondering about was pre action protocols. As I have stated this is a claim for the tort of conspiracy where the pre action protocols are not as strict as a claim for breach of statutory duty which requires, I believe, a three month response time before you can bring action. However if one of the illegal acts I will be invoking is breach of statutory duty does that mean the pre action protocols will be the same as for a claim for breach of statutory duty even though its not a claim for breach of statutory duty. The pre action protocol time period for response to conspiracy is the standard two weeks before action is initiated.

[R0b]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

Because the cause of action is a tort, then the pre-action protocol I believe would not be the statutory one, rather the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct - unless the statutory protocol specifically covers claims for conspiracy so you might need to double check that, though I would doubt it would.

[marlo]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

Because the cause of action is a tort, then the pre-action protocol I believe would not be the statutory one, rather the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct - unless the statutory protocol specifically covers claims for conspiracy so you might need to double check that, though I would doubt it would.

When you say "the statutory one" do you mean the breach of statutory duty protocol, in which case you believe the three month time frame would not apply? I just want to be certain I understand your response. Thanks

[R0b]

Re: Tort of Conspiracy

When you say "the statutory one" do you mean the breach of statutory duty protocol, in which case you believe the three month time frame would not apply? I just want to be certain I understand your response. Thanks

Yes that's right.