When we hear the word “conspiracy,” we often think of secretive, unlawful plots designed to deceive or harm. However, in the legal realm, conspiracy can also encompass lawful acts with intentions that may still result in damage to another party. This distinction is crucial in understanding the concept of lawful conspiracy.
Lawful conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more parties to commit a lawful act with the predominant purpose of injuring or damaging another party, and the act is then carried out and the purpose achieved.
Unlawful conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more parties to commit an unlawful act with the intention to injure the plaintiff. Similarly, the act is then carried out and the intention achieved.
The Elements of Lawful Conspiracy
The following elements come together to constitute a lawful conspiracy:
- There was a combination or agreement between two or more persons.
- The sole or dominant purpose of the combination or agreement was to injure the plaintiff.
- The combination or agreement was carried into effect by the defendants’ conduct.
- The defendants’ conduct in carrying the combination or agreement into effect caused damage to the plaintiff.
Differences between lawful and unlawful conspiracy
What the two have in common is that they both require proof of the conspiracy. The plaintiff must show that the defendants had an intention to injure, that this intention was carried into effect and that damage was caused to the plaintiff.
It is generally accepted as unlikely that the plaintiff will be able to prove the specifics regarding the actual agreement between the defendants that amounted to the conspiracy. The plaintiff will therefore generally only be required to show the overt acts relied on to justify an allegation of conspiratorial agreement.
1. Prominence of the required purpose
Both types of conspiracy require the plaintiff to prove that the purpose of the conspiracy was to injure the plaintiff. For lawful conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove the purpose of injuring was the sole or predominant purpose, while unlawful conspiracy only requires the plaintiff prove there was a purpose (whether it was predominant or not).
2. Nature of the means used to injure the plaintiff
For unlawful conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove the agreement between the parties was to engage in conduct that amounted to unlawful means.
3. Nature of means used to carry the conspiracy into effect and cause injury to the plaintiff
For an unlawful means of conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove that the conspiracy was carried into effect by commission of the agreed unlawful acts, and those agreed unlawful acts caused damage to the plaintiff. This is not required for lawful conspiracy.
Seeking Advice
If you are concerned about any of the issues raised here in regards to a conspiracy, or feel that someone might be targeting you with such methods, make a booking with Fox Piper to discuss your situation.
Conclusion
Understanding the nuances between lawful and unlawful conspiracy is pivotal in navigating legal responsibilities and liabilities. By recognising the critical elements and distinctions outlined, individuals and businesses can proactively safeguard their interests and ensure their safety. Should uncertainty arise regarding potential exposure, seeking timely advice from our legal professionals. Fox Piper can assist you to mitigate risks and promote informed decision-making.
