A conspiracy to defraud is an agreement by two or more persons by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be or might be entitled, or to injure some proprietary right of his.

Offence of conspiracy to defraud Conspiracy to defraud is a common law offence which was expressly preserved by section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (CLA 1977) and is triable only on indictment. The offence requires that two or more individuals conspire dishonestly to commit a fraud against a victim. It is a very wide offence and catches conduct that might not constitute an offence but which, by reason of two or more people agreeing to do it with the requisite intent, it becomes an offence. Common law conspiracy is therefore wider than statutory conspiracy because it does not require the agreement to be in respect of the commission of a substantive criminal offence. The statutory offence of conspiracy is found in CLA 1977, s 1. The statutory offence requires a conspiracy that will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of a particular offence by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or would do so, but for the existence of facts that render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible.

This Practice Note on economic torts compares in summary form the distinguishing features of pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, unlawful interference and procuring a breach of contract. For detailed guidance on each of the different torts, see 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 Related to the tort of procuring a breach of contract is the so-called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action predicated on the defendant’s alleged intentional violation of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt, on which see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). Such claims can often (though need not) involve a party’s fiduciary or agent, including company directors, for further guidance, see Practice Notes: • Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners • Agency disputes • Fiduciary Duties • Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach In addition,

Constant proportion portfolio insurance (CPPI) is an investment strategy which aims to provide downside protection and upside potential by varying the allocation to cash and volatile assets as the value of the portfolio changes.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2026 and is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the completed acquisition by Constellation Developments Limited of ABVR Holdings Limited. The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in the supply of business-to-business (B2B) used vehicle auction services in Great Britain. Latest developments On 5 March 2025, the CMA issued its final report, finding that the transaction has not resulted, and may not be expected to result, in an SLC in the supply of B2B used vehicle auction services. In particular, the CMA found that, although ABVR Holdings Limited has constrained British Car Auctions Limited pre-merger, it would likely have exited the market absent the transaction, and any asset purchaser would not have imposed a material competitive constraint, meaning the competitive constraint would be lost in any event. Parties • Constellation Developments Limited (Constellation): Constellation is part of a group of companies active in the used vehicle remarketing and retail sector

Unless the context otherwise requires, a company’s 'constitution' is defined under CA 2006, s 17 to include the company’s articles of association, and any resolutions and agreements affecting a company’s constitution (along with other documents such as the certificate of incorporation and any certificates of incorporation on change of name, and a current statement of capital (or statement of guarantee for a company limited by guarantee)). Before 1 October 2009, a company's memorandum of association was an integral part of its constitution. However, the constitutional significance of the memorandum has been greatly reduced by the CA 2006.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee held its annual evidence session with the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, and the Deputy President, Lord Hodge. The session covered several points of discussion including, but not limited to, how the Supreme Court has evolved over the past 15 years, international activities that the Supreme Court has undertaken, the progress on judges from overseas jurisdictions to be appointed the Privy Council and a summary of ongoing work to engage with Parliamentarians.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has launched an inquiry on relations between the national and devolved administrations further to the report ‘Respect and Cooperation: Building a stronger union for the 21st century’, which was published in January 2022. The Committee has called for evidence on: cooperation via the new intergovernmental relations arrangements that were introduced in 2022; consultation by the UK government with devolved administrations; and legislative consent under the Sewel convention. The deadline for written submissions is 8 April 2024.

The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has published its second report of session 2024–2025 on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. The report covers an introduction to the Bill, the delegated powers, the devolution and legislative consent as well as an appendix with a list of members and declarations of interest.

The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has published its third report of session 2024–2025 on the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The report covers an introduction to the Bill, the digital verification services, the general data protection regulation, constitutional statutes and Information standards for health and social care as well as an appendix with a list of members and declaration of interest.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published its first report of session 2024–2025 on the effectiveness of intergovernmental relations structures and the operation of the Sewel convention. The report examines systemic issues facing intergovernmental co-operation and whether current structures are robust enough to survive future pressures. The Committee has made 20 recommendations to the government, including a review of the effectiveness of the intergovernmental relations structures which were introduced in January 2022 and a renewed governmental commitment to respecting the Sewel convention. Additionally, a new ‘principle of positive engagement’ has been recommended by the Committee. The report is part of the follow-up inquiry stemming from the findings of the 2022 report ‘Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century’. The Committee has stated that it intends to return to this matter and has asked the government to implement the recommendations in the report and provide a progress update by the end of September 2025.

Constitutional avoidance describes the judicial practice of interpreting legislation or exercising judicial powers in a way that avoids deciding a constitutional issue where this is not strictly necessary to resolve the case. Courts instead prefer to decide on narrower statutory, procedural, or factual grounds if available. In the UK (including England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), the concept is closely linked to principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, judicial restraint and the presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate incompatibly with constitutional principles or human rights. It appears in case law rather than in statute, often through canons of statutory interpretation and the doctrine of judicial deference in sensitive constitutional or political matters. In Ireland, constitutional avoidance is more explicit, reflecting the written Constitution and the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court in constitutional review. Irish courts frequently state that constitutional questions should not be decided unless indispensable to the outcome, and will interpret statutes, where possible, in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Across all four jurisdictions, the doctrine influences litigation strategy, statutory drafting, and the framing of constitutional and human rights arguments.