Conspiracy

Stevenson and another v Singh and others [2012] EWHC 2880 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 76 (Nov); NLJ 16 November

In order to be liable as a conspirator participating in a conspiracy to use unlawful means, a party has to at least have been aware of the means intended to be used, aware that the use of those means would be unlawful and agree to the use of those means. If the party in question had not been aware of the means intended to be used, or not aware that the use of those means would be unlawful, it could not be said that that party was a party to a combination to use unlawful means. It would rarely, if ever, be the case that clear evidence of an agreement or combination would be put before the court. Proof of a conspiracy was almost always going to depend upon drawing inferences from such evidence as was available, what were often referred to as ‘the over acts’ performed pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. In order to establish liability for dishonestly assisting a party acting in breach of a fiduciary obligation, it was necessary to demonstrate that the person providing the assistance had been acting dishonestly, in the light of what he or she had actually known at the time, as distinct from what a reasonable person would have known or appreciated.