Journal article icon

Journal article

Intentional harm, accessories and conspiracies

Abstract:
Assesses the principles about conspiracy tort which can be derived from OBG Ltd v Allan (HL), Customs and Excise Commissioners v Total Network SL (HL) and Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK (SC), including how they clarify its relationship with the tort of intentional infliction of harm by unlawful means and the concept of accessory liability. Suggests why criminal law and economic torts are unhelpful for determining civil liability for conspiracy.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed
Version:
Accepted Manuscript

Actions


Access Document


Files:

Authors


More by this author
Department:
St Catherines College
Role:
Author
Publisher:
Sweet and Maxwell Publisher's website
Journal:
Law Quarterly Review Journal website
Volume:
134
Issue:
Jan
Pages:
69-93
Publication date:
2018-01-02
Acceptance date:
2016-12-13
ISSN:
0023-933X
Pubs id:
pubs:665386
URN:
uri:af95972a-41d1-4876-b3b8-c910bbbe6935
UUID:
uuid:af95972a-41d1-4876-b3b8-c910bbbe6935
Local pid:
pubs:665386
Paper number:
Jan

Terms of use


Metrics


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP