← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case unlawful means conspiracy

Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua (Conspiracy)

[2017] SGCA 21
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Unlawful means conspiracy requires combination, intention to injure, unlawful acts and damage; predominant purpose need not be injury where unlawful means are used.

Key Principle

Unlawful means conspiracy requires a combination, intention to injure, unlawful acts, and resulting damage; the predominant purpose need not be to injure if unlawful means are used.

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong Hua (Conspiracy) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Lt...