L16 Equitable and Tortious obligations

L16 Equitable and Tortious obligations

1. Equitable obligations problem

   • Breach of trust
     • Personal claims against trustee (third parties) for breach of trust.
       • "knowing receipt"
         • those who receive trust property/assets
       • “dishonest assistance”
         • those who assist trustee in breaching trust
   • Breach of Fiduciary obligations
   • Breach of Confidence
     • 3 elements needed (to be proved) for cause of action of Confidence
       • Information confidential
       • Relationship confidential
       • there was unauthorized use

2. Tortious obligations problem

   • Tort law imposes various obligations (duties) on persons going about their activities not to cause harm to those their activities put at risk.
   • Tort law only imposes liability on those who cause harm when there is a legal duty not to cause harm.
   • two types of duty and liability
     • strict liability
       • A duty not to harm others by doing an activity – whether or not it was done carelessly or absentmindedly.
       • e.g. Fletcher v Rylands
         • Plaintiff: occupier of mines Defendant: wanted to make a reservoir Defendant got contractors to help make a reservoir. As they were digging, contractors found old mining passages, filled with rubbish. Instead of blocking, contractors continued work. These mining passages connect to the plaintiff’s mine. When water was placed in, the plaintiff’s mines were also affected by the water. Contractors were negligent; but defendants had no knowledge of the mining passages and were not found negligent.
     • negligence
       • Duties not to injure negligently; aka by acting carelessly
       • e.g. Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd
         • One of the defendant’s drivers was reversing a truck at the plaintiff’s factory. The driver was careless and backed into a power pole. This broke some of the attached wires connected to the plaintiff’s factory. As a result, a fire broke out at the factory, which caused some damage. The power cut also meant that there was a loss of production for some time at the factory.
       • Not all carelessness leads to liability – only carelessness when there exists a duty to take care...
         • and the person did not meet the requisite standard of care in his or her behaviour
           • and it was the defendant’s breach of the duty of care that caused harm to the plaintiff
             • existence of a duty (1) and the standard of care (2) are measures designed to seek balance in the law.
       • a defendant will not be liable for all consequences – damage that is too remote from the wrongdoing cannot be recovered (remoteness).
       • Courts have found that a defendant will be only liable for the kind of harms that were reasonably foreseeable
       • policy considerations
         • requires the Court to assess the possible effects of the decision to impose a duty on society and on the law generally.
       • vicarious liability
         • Employer is responsible for the employee’s negligence
   • establishing tort liability
     • Plaintiff must have suffered harm or threatened harm
     • The harm must have been caused by action or inaction by the defendant
     • The defendant’s action or inaction must have been a result of some duty/obligation owed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
     • e.g. Donoghue v Stevenson

Images and files in the map