The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out claims for damages for conspiracy made in the plaintiff's statement of claim.
The defendant argued that the Competition Act precludes conspiracy allegations relating to price maintenance, that directing minds cannot conspire with their corporation, that the principle of merger precludes the claims, and that special damages were not properly pleaded.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the law on price maintenance conspiracy is unsettled, the directing minds' alleged conduct was tortious in itself, the principle of merger applies at trial rather than the pleadings stage, and pleading the same special damages for both substantive wrongs and conspiracy is sufficient.
