Intention and Unlawful Means in the Tort of Conspiracy: OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v. Burhan Uray

• Main Author: CHAN, Gary Kok Yew
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2005
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Dispute Resolution and Arbitration; Torts
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/751
• Institution: Singapore Management University

This case note focuses on two specific issues in the tort of conspiracy. The first issue is whether the defendants have to act with a purpose to harm the plaintiff in order to satisfy the requirement of the intention to injure, or is it sufficient so long as they embark deliberately upon a course of conduct whilst appreciating the probable consequences to the plaintiff. The second issue is whether the unlawful means have to be actionable in their own right by the plaintiffs against at least one of the conspirators. The Singapore High Court was recently presented with the unenviable task of unraveling these vexed issues in the case of OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP. In this case, some institutional investors (the plaintiffs) brought proceedings against several individuals and companies (the defendants) for conspiring to defraud the former by misrepresenting the true financial position of a company (one of the defendants). The plaintiffs alleged that the misrepresentations induced them to purchase guaranteed notes issued by one of the defendants while funds derived from the issue were diverted. A world-wide Mareva injunction was granted by the Singapore High Court to prevent the defendants from dissipating their assets. In response, the defendants applied to strike out the claim on the grounds that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, or as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.