Ohp v Tep

The parties in this matter were Ohp (the applicant) and Tep (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's application to strike out the applicant's originating process and statement of claim on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were an abuse of process. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's claim, which alleged a conspiracy to injure the applicant by unlawful means, was capable of being sustained in law. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant had pleaded sufficient material facts to establish the elements of such a tort, particularly in relation to the alleged unlawful means and the causal connection between the conspiracy and the applicant's loss.

Gummow and Heydon JJ found that the applicant's pleading was deficient. Their Honours explained that to establish a conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, it is necessary to plead that the conspirators agreed to do acts which, if done in isolation, would be unlawful, and that the predominant purpose of the agreement was to injure the plaintiff. The court held that the applicant had failed to particularise the alleged unlawful means with sufficient clarity, and had not demonstrated that the alleged acts were unlawful in themselves or that the predominant purpose of the alleged conspiracy was to injure the applicant. The pleading did not sufficiently identify the specific unlawful acts that formed the basis of the conspiracy.

The High Court ordered that the applicant's originating process and statement of claim be struck out.