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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll