The tort of conspiracy has been recognised by Malaysian courts as a cause of action where two or more persons agree to act together with the intention of causing injury or damage to the plaintiff. The essential elements of the tort were discussed by the Court of Appeal in Global Ventures Network Sdn Bhd v. Lokman bin Dato’ Mohd Kamal and Another Appeal [2018] 7 CLJ 1; [2018] 6 MLJ 103, which held that the plaintiff must establish an agreement between two or more persons to injure the plaintiff and that acts carried out pursuant to that agreement resulted in damage.

Earlier, the Court of Appeal in Renault SA v. Inokom Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor and Other Appeals [2010] 5 CLJ 32; [2010] 5 MLJ 394, affirmed that the agreement need not be formal or written. It may be an informal agreement or a combination of efforts between the alleged conspirators. However, the agreement must have been formed before the unlawful acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In Forest Steel Sdn Bhd v. Iconic Gateway Sdn Bhd & Anor and Another Appeal [2020] 7 CLJ 19, the Court of Appeal set out the four essential elements of conspiracy:

1. An agreement between two or more persons;
2. An agreement made for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff;
3. Acts carried out in execution of the agreement which resulted in damage to the plaintiff; and
4. The acts causing the damage were committed without justification or excuse.

Conspiracy by Unlawful Means

In Tay Keong Kok & Ors v. Eastmont Sdn Bhd and Another Appeal [2025] 1 CLJ 583 CA  , the Court of Appeal clarified the additional requirements for conspiracy by unlawful means. The plaintiff must establish that the conspirators intended to injure the plaintiff, although such intention need not be their sole or predominant purpose. It is sufficient if causing injury to the plaintiff was one of the intended purposes of the agreement. Further, the unlawful means employed need not constitute an independently actionable wrong against the plaintiff.

This principle was also affirmed in Goh Bak Ming v. Yeoh Eng Kong & Other Appeals [2019] 1 CLJ 461, where the Court of Appeal explained that where the acts committed are not unlawful, the plaintiff must prove that causing injury or damage was the predominant or main purpose of the agreement.

In Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v. Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors & Another Case [2026] CLJU 949, the court further clarified that, even in unlawful means conspiracy, the intention to injure must involve an intention to cause loss to the plaintiff, either as an end in itself or as a means to achieve another end. This approach is consistent with the reasoning in The Dolphina [2011] SGHC 273; [2012] 1 SLR 992, which referred to the principle established in OBG Ltd v. Allan [2008] 1 AC 1.

In summary, a claim in conspiracy requires proof of a common agreement, the requisite intention to injure, acts carried out pursuant to that agreement, and resulting damage to the plaintiff. For conspiracy by unlawful means, it is sufficient that the intention to injure was one of the purposes of the agreement, whereas for conspiracy by lawful means, the predominant purpose must be to cause injury or damage to the plaintiff.