Conspiracy meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Litigation Case management Evidence and disclosure ADR Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Dispute Resolution Highlights 2025/2026 Key DR developments Alternative dispute resolution European Parliament adopts new rules to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers The European Parliament has approved refreshed measures to enhance consumer out-of-court complaint handling, updating the EU’s ADR framework for the digital landscape and cross-border disputes. The reforms delineate ADR’s reach to cover matters arising both before and after contractual agreements, and in specified circumstances enable involvement by traders from third countries. The directive will come into force 20 days following publication and will begin to apply 32 months thereafter. For more, see: Parliament adopts new rules to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers—LNB News 16/12/2025 Court information HMCTS update hearing...

Qatar Investment and Project Developments Holding Co v Phoenix Ancient Art SA [2025] EWCA Civ 1300 What was the background? In this Court of Appeal matter, the respondents to the appeal (the claimants) applied, by way of an application, for security to cover their appeal costs. The appellants/defendants were Phoenix Ancient Art S.A., a Swiss company, together with Ali Aboutaam, a Swiss resident, and Hicham Aboutaam, resident in New York. The claimants had issued two separate claims against five defendants in total, of whom the first three were the present appellants: one action commenced in 2020 and a second in 2023 respectively. Each claim concerned the artefacts in issue, acquired and purchased from Phoenix, which the claimants alleged were counterfeit and inauthentic. The 2020 proceedings focused on a small chalcedony statuette depicting the goddess Nike. The 2023 proceedings concerned two further pieces, namely: a marble work titled the Head of Alexander the Great as Herakles, and a small chalcedony cameo described as the Phalera with an Imperial Eagle....

In this issue: Residential property Transferring property Easements, rights and covenants Property taxes Additional property updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts Trackers New Q&As Residential property Failure to serve claim notice did not invalidate transfer of right to manage The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal in A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, confirming that Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd (Tudor Studios RTM Company)’s omission to serve a claim notice on A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd (A1 Properties) did not undo the transfer of the right to manage. The issue for decision was the consequence of non-compliance with section 79(6)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002), and whether such a failure necessarily invalidates the process. Court of Appeal authority indicates that not every failure to serve a claim notice defeats an RTM company’s acquisition of the right to manage the premises: Elim Court...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note offers a practical guide to running and resisting investigations and prosecutions under the UK’s former corruption framework that applied before the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) commenced (the pre‑BA 2010 regime). It addresses: how to frame charges for common law bribery (ie under the relevant statutes), including charge selection for conduct straddling both regimes case law defining a public body the need for a corrupt intent the presumption of corruption and associated human rights ramifications the requirements of secrecy and corruption, and what companies can do to minimise historic exposure to prosecution This Practice Note also considers: the offence of bribery at common law the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (PBCPA 1889) the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (PCA 1906), and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (PCA 1916) For details on the operative legal provisions, ongoing liability, territorial reach, and penalties and sentencing...

This Practice Note examines the principles governing the tort whereby a defendant deliberately interferes with a claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. For wider guidance on enforcing judgments, see: Introduction to enforcement—overview and related content. What is the Marex tort? The Marex tort describes a tort-based cause of action premised on an alleged intentional infringement of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt. Its contours were first confirmed by Bryan J in 2021 in Lakatamia v Su, having been raised by Knowles J in 2017 in Marex v Garcia (also known as Marex v Sevilleja). See: Marex tort—history below. In Lakatamia v Su, Lakatamia pursued two claims against the defendants, Mr Su and his mother, Madam Su, including: unlawful means conspiracy—alleging a concerted plan to harm Lakatamia by unlawful means, through breaches of a 2011 worldwide freezing order in related Commercial Court proceedings against Mr Su (the Blair Freezing Order), by procuring the dissipation of two of Mr Son’s assets: the net sale proceeds...

What’s the issue? The Serious Crime Act 2015 (SCA 2015) creates an offence for involvement in the activities of an organised crime group. Participation Engaging in any conduct that you know, or reasonably suspect, either: (a) constitutes the criminal activities of an organised crime group; or (b) will assist an organised crime group to continue its criminal activities. Criminal activities Conduct amounting to offences carrying a maximum sentence of seven years or more (eg drug or human trafficking, firearms offences, fraud, child exploitation and cybercrime). No financial gain needs to be present. Organised crime group An organised crime group means three or more individuals who act, or agree to act, together to advance the pursuit of criminal activities. This is a wide-ranging definition. In principle, the offence could arise in relation to any conduct that helps, facilitates or amounts to participation in, eg a conspiracy to steal or to commit...