Tort of Conspiracy
1. Meaning of Conspiracy in Tort Law
The Tort of Conspiracy arises when two or more persons agree to act together to commit a wrongful act that causes damage to another person. It is not necessary that the wrongful act is actually carried out; the agreement itself can be actionable if it is intended to cause harm.
Definition:
“A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an act which is either unlawful or a lawful act by unlawful means, resulting in injury to another.”
Essentials of Conspiracy:
Combination of two or more persons – A single person cannot conspire.
An intention to cause harm – The purpose must be to injure or damage someone.
Commitment of a wrongful act or unlawful means – Either illegal act or lawful act done by unlawful methods.
Resulting in damage or likely to cause damage – The plaintiff must prove damage or the likelihood of damage.
2. Types of Conspiracy in Tort Law
Civil Conspiracy
Involves an agreement to harm another person without any criminal intent.
Example: Two business rivals agree to spread false rumors to damage a competitor’s business.
Case Law: Beesly v. Touche (1876) – A combination to prevent a person from competing in business amounted to civil conspiracy.
Criminal Conspiracy
The agreement itself constitutes a crime, apart from any damage caused.
Example: Planning a theft or fraud.
In tort, liability arises if the conspiracy causes civil damage, even if the criminal act is not completed.
3. Liability in Conspiracy
Every conspirator is liable: Each member of the conspiracy can be held liable for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Intention is key: Liability arises from the intent to harm, not just participation.
Unlawful means vs. lawful act by unlawful means:
Unlawful act: Directly illegal acts like fraud, trespass, or defamation.
Lawful act by unlawful means: Using legal acts in a malicious or illegal way to harm someone (e.g., suing someone maliciously).
4. Case Laws on Tort of Conspiracy
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889)
Facts: Shipping companies agreed to undercut a rival company by offering cheaper rates.
Held: Competition alone is not unlawful unless done by illegal means. Liability arises only if there is malicious intent and unlawful means.
Rookes v. Barnard (1964)
Facts: Trade union members threatened an employee to compel him to resign.
Held: Conspiracy to injure using unlawful means is actionable; damages were awarded.
Principle: Liability arises if the conspiracy is intended to cause injury and unlawful acts are committed.
Beesly v. Touche (1876)
Facts: Two or more parties conspired to harm another person’s business interests.
Held: Civil conspiracy exists even if the act is lawful but done with malicious intent to injure.
Miller v. Jackson (1977)
Facts: Local cricket club’s negligence caused damage to neighboring properties.
Held: Agreement by the club members to continue despite foreseeable damage can be seen as a civil conspiracy.
5. Defences Against Tort of Conspiracy
Absence of Malicious Intent – If the action is genuine business competition or lawful act done without intention to harm.
Case: Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor
No Unlawful Means – If the act in furtherance of agreement is not illegal.
Lack of Damage – If no actual damage occurred or harm was not reasonably foreseeable.
6. Key Points to Remember
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Parties | Two or more persons agreeing |
| Intention | Must be to injure or harm |
| Act | Can be unlawful act or lawful act by unlawful means |
| Result | Damage or likely damage to plaintiff |
| Liability | Every conspirator liable for acts in furtherance of conspiracy |
| Defences | Absence of malicious intent, lawful acts, no damage |
✅ Summary
Tort of Conspiracy protects individuals and businesses from combined actions meant to cause harm.
Liability arises from intent and agreement, not just the act itself.
Key Cases:
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor (1889) – lawful competition not conspiracy.
Beesly v. Touche (1876) – civil conspiracy exists with malicious intent.
Rookes v. Barnard (1964) – unlawful means with intent to harm is actionable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments