Tort of Conspiracy

The tort of conspiracy is an intricate legal concept rooted in both historical and contemporary jurisprudence. This tort addresses scenarios where two or more individuals collaborate with the intent to cause harm or engage in unlawful activities. Originating from early British law, the tort of conspiracy has evolved significantly, adapting to modern legal challenges and interpretations.

Tort of Conspiracy Meaning

The tort of conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more individuals to act together with the intent to cause harm or engage in unlawful activities against another party. It is a civil wrong where the conspirators’ collective actions result in damage to the claimant, which would not occur if undertaken by a single person.

There are two main types: conspiracy to injure, where the predominant purpose is to cause harm, and unlawful means conspiracy, where the conspirators use illegal actions to achieve their objective, regardless of their primary intent. The tort seeks to address both the intent and the collaborative nature of the wrongdoing, holding all parties involved accountable for the resulting harm.

Historical Background of Tort of Conspiracy

The origins of the tort of conspiracy can be traced back to early British law, where the writ of conspiracy was recognised. Initially, it focused on the abuse of legal procedures and was acknowledged during the reign of Queen Elisabeth I. Over time, the concept developed, with the 17th century marking a significant evolution when conspiracy was established as a crime by the Star Chamber. In common law courts, conspiracy was seen not only as a criminal act but also as a source of civil liability.

In the 19th century, the landmark case of Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch further solidified the dual nature of conspiracy as both a criminal and civil wrong. This case underscored the distinction between criminal conspiracy, governed by statutes such as the Criminal Law Act 1977 and civil conspiracy, which remains broader in scope and is not confined by statutory definitions.

The Concept of Civil Conspiracy

Civil conspiracy can be classified into two main types:

1. Conspiracy to Injure (Crofter Conspiracy)
2. Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Conspiracy to Injure

Conspiracy to injure, also known as Crofter conspiracy, occurs when a combination of individuals aims to cause harm to the claimant. This harm can be to the claimant’s trade, business or other legitimate interests. The important element here is the predominant purpose behind the actions. If the primary intent is to cause injury, even lawful acts can be deemed unlawful.

The case of Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch serves as a cornerstone in understanding this tort. The court held that the tort of conspiracy exists when the predominant purpose of a combination is to injure another and damage results from such actions. Notably, malice, in the form of malevolence or ill will, is not a requisite for liability. Instead, it is the intention to cause harm that is paramount.

Viscount Simon’s explanation further clarifies this:

• If the predominant purpose is to damage another and damage ensues, it constitutes tortious conspiracy.
• If the purpose is to lawfully protect or promote the interests of the combiners, even if it causes damage to another, it is not considered tortious conspiracy.

This principle highlights that actions taken to improve one’s market share, strengthen trade unions or maintain trade prices are not actionable as conspiracies, provided the primary intent is lawful.

Unlawful Means Conspiracy

Unlawful means conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more parties to use unlawful means against the claimant. Unlike conspiracy to injure, the predominant intention to cause harm is not necessary; however, the claimant must suffer loss as a result of the unlawful acts.

Two key elements define unlawful means conspiracy:

1. Unlawful Means: This includes acts or threats that are civilly wrongful and actionable or acts that are criminal but would not be civilly actionable if done by a single individual.
2. Intention of the Defendant: The defendants must intend to cause damage to the claimant through unlawful means. The damage must be essential to achieve the conspiracy’s objective.

The case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Total Network SL illustrates unlawful means conspiracy. In this case, the defendants engaged in a fraudulent VAT scheme, leading to significant financial loss. The court found the defendants liable, emphasising that the conspiracy’s primary aim was not to injure but to gain financial benefits unlawfully.

The Tort of Conspiracy in India

In India, the tort of conspiracy is not codified, unlike criminal conspiracy, which is governed by Sections 120A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The principles governing the tort of conspiracy in India are derived from British law and are regulated by justice, equity, good conscience and common law precedents.

Key Case Laws on Tort of Conspiracy

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v. Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in unethical business practices and conspired to harm their business interests. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a clear prima facie case and the balance of convenience did not favour the claimants, making the case non-actionable.

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v. Total Network SL

This case involved a VAT fraud scheme, where the defendants’ actions were deemed unlawful means conspiracy. The court held the defendants liable for engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully gain financial benefits.

Huntley v. Thornton

Here, the defendants acted out of personal animosity, causing the claimant to lose his job. The court found the defendants liable for tortious conspiracy due to their malicious intent.

Rotas Industries Ltd. v. Rotas Industries Staff Union

The Supreme Court examined whether the union was liable for damages resulting from an illegal strike. The court held that since the union’s intent was to support its members and not to injure the management, they were not liable for conspiracy.

Sorrel v. Smith

In this case, the defendants acted to promote their own business interests. The court found that their primary intent was not to injure the plaintiff but to advance their business, thus they were not liable for conspiracy.

Conclusion

The tort of conspiracy remains a complex and evolving area of law, balancing the protection of legitimate business interests with the need to prevent malicious and unlawful conduct. Understanding its historical roots, distinguishing between its types and analysing key case laws provides a comprehensive insight into this multifaceted legal concept. Whether dealing with conspiracy to injure or unlawful means conspiracy, the intent behind the actions and the resulting harm are important in determining liability. As legal systems continue to evolve, the principles governing the tort of conspiracy will undoubtedly adapt to address new challenges and scenarios in both civil and criminal contexts.