Davies, PS;
Sales, P;
(2018)
Intentional harm, accessories and conspiracies.
The Law Quarterly Review
, 134
pp. 69-93.
Preview |
Text
Davies_Conspiracy article - LQR FINAL revised May17 - clean.pdf - Accepted Version Download (764kB) | Preview |
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.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Intentional harm, accessories and conspiracies |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| Publisher version: | http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/Product... |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| Keywords: | Accessories; Causing loss by unlawful means; Conspiracy; Unlawful means conspiracy |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10038445 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
