9780192857170_Ch1

1.4 The Contemporary Contribution of Equity to English Law 13 documentation reflects the intentions of the parties. But there will be some cases where rectification may have other consequences, such as extinguishing rights which would oth erwise be enjoyed by the defendant according to the face of the document or enabling the claimant to recover property which had been transferred to the defendant. This is illus trated by Day v Day , 65 where a written conveyance was rectified as a consequence of there being a mistake relating to its legal effect. Property had been settled on trust. The settlor had intended the property to be used simply as security to enable the defendant to raise funds, whereas the effect of the settlement was to give the defendant an interest in the property. The effect of rectification was to enable the settlor’s estate to recover the property which had been mistakenly transferred to the defendant. 1.4.2 Tort Equity recognizes a variety of civil wrongs, especially claims for breach of trust 66 or breach of fiduciary duty. 67 Although it is rare to describe them as torts, which are typically con sidered to be the creation of the Common Law, 68 many of these wrongs have much in common with the torts that are recognized at Common Law. For example, whereas the Common Law recognizes a tort of inducing a breach of contract, Equity recognizes the equivalent wrong of inducing a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty, commonly called the ‘action for dishonest assistance’. 69 Although there is an analogy with the Common Law tort, they are not identical, since the Common Law tort is one of strict li ability, whereas the equitable wrong requires proof of fault. Similarly, Equity recognizes an action for breach of confidence where the defendant is in a relationship with the claimant by virtue of which there is a duty to maintain confi dences and the defendant breaches that duty, for example by disclosing confidential infor mation to another. 70 This action has sometimes been characterized as a tort, 71 although its equitable foundations in conscience remain significant in determining the nature of the claim and the remedies which are awarded. 72 The essence of the action was correctly identified by Deane J in Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) : 73 ‘its rational basis . . . lies in the notion of an obligation of conscience arising from the circumstances in or through which the information was communicated or obtained.’ A duty of confi dence may relate to trade secrets, 74 national security, 75 and even personal confidences. 76 A distinct tort of misuse of private information has developed from the action of breach of confidence which operates to protect privacy rather than secret or confidential informa tion and which does not require proof of a relationship of confidence. 77

© Oxford University Press

66 See Chapter 17.

67 See Chapter 15.

65 [2013] EWCA Civ 280, [2014] Ch 114.

68 Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391, 474 (Slade LJ), quoting Salmond & Heuston on Torts (19th edn, 1987), 14. 69 See Section 20.3.2, p. 677. 70 Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41. 71 Walsh v Shanahan [2013] EWCA Civ 411, [55] (Rimer LJ). 72 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414, 438 (Deane J); Stephens v Avery [1988] Ch 449, 455 (Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C). 73 (1984) 156 CLR 414, 438. See also Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2013] UKSC 31, [2013] 1 WLR 1556, [22] and I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32; [2020] 1 SLR 1130, [51] (Singapore Court of Appeal). 74 Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd [1948] 65 RPC 203. 75 Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] AC 109. 76 Argyll v Argyll [1967] 1 Ch 302. 77 Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311, [2016] QB 1003.

© Oxford University Press