header-logo header-logo

16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Fraud

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

In order to be liable as a conspirator participating in a conspiracy to use unlawful means, a party had to at least be 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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Employment boutique strengthens data protection and privacy offering with senior consultant hire

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll