What is the test for alleging conspiracy in a breach of contract action?

Denning L.J. went on to say on the same page: The prior agreement merges in the tort. A party is not allowed to gain an added advantage by charging conspiracy when the agreement has become merged in the tort. It is sometimes sought, by charging conspiracy, to get an added advantage, for instance in proceedings for discovery, or by getting in evidence which would not be admissible in a straight action in tort, or to overcome substantive rules of law, such as here, the rules concerning republication of slanders. When the court sees attempts of that kind being made, it will discourage them by striking out the allegation of conspiracy on the simple ground that the conspiracy adds nothing when the tort has in fact been committed. Hunt v. Carey, supra, is distinguishable on the facts. There, the unlawful means to carry out the conspiracy differed from the tort and therefore the doctrine of merger did not apply. I repeat that no special damages are claimed here, nor is the predominant purpose to injure the plaintiffs. For these reasons this part of the claim must also be struck. Breach of Contract