From: Matthew P. Harrington <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>
To: Hector MacQueen <Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk>
Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
obligations@uwo.ca
CC: birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de
Date: 03/03/2023 13:04:29 UTC
Subject: RE: Hancock v Oakeshott

Under Canadian law, (not applicable here, of course), Oakshott might be in a bit of difficulty.

 

A confidential relationship might have been created because (1) confidential information was conveyed; (2) in confidence; and was then (3)

misused by the party to whom it was communicated.  Lac Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd [1989] 2 SCR 574, says that a breach of confidence action is sui generis, and is independent of contract and property.

 

I’d argue the elements are made out but is there damage?  Is exposing Hancock’s venality and arrogance a detriment? 

 

 

 

From: Hector MacQueen <Hector.MacQueen@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>; Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; obligations@uwo.ca
Cc: birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de
Subject: Re: Hancock v Oakeshott

 

Perhaps fortunate for Isabel Oakeshott that the case is unlikely to be brought in a Scottish court using Scots law's notions of the gratuitous contract and the unilateral promise. With regard to the latter, statute normally requires signed writing, with an exception for promises made in the course of business. I would guess that Oakeshott's NDA promise falls into the latter category.

 

Hector

 

Hector L MacQueen CBE FBA FRSE 

Emeritus Professor of Private Law

University of Edinburgh Law School

Old College 

South Bridge

Edinburgh EH8 9 YL

 

 

From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: 03 March 2023 12:32
To: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>; obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Cc: birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de <birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: Hancock v Oakeshott

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

Surely even if non-contractual, the existence of the NDA creates a relationship of confidence? But I would agree the willingness to share confidential information on condition of non-disclosure ought to be regarded as consideration for the bargain. 

 

Matthew Hoyle

Barrister

One Essex Court

 

This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete this email and immediately inform the sender.

 

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:28:29 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Cc: birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de <birke.haecker@uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Hancock v Oakeshott

 

My much-missed former Oxford Colleague Birke Häcker aske me to write on her behalf:

 

Dear colleagues,

 

It is widely reported that Isabel Oakeshott did not charge Matt Hancock any fee for ghostwriting (or ‘co-authoring’) his ‘Pandemic Diaries’ – interestingly described as her having acted ‘pro bono’.

 

If this is so, then surely the NDA she signed is unenforceable unless contained in a deed? Media law specialists appear to assume that it was under seal, describing it as a “contractual agreement …. enforcible as such” without adverting to the “pro bono” quirk of the particular case: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/02/isabel-oakeshott-matt-hancock-whatsapps-journalist-media-law

 

Does anyone know what the usual conventions are on NDAs? In short, am I missing something – or was Isabel Oakeshott really savvy in arranging the Hancock deal?

 

With best wishes

Birke (Häcker)

 

 

(For myself, much like Captain Renault, I am shocked that Ms Oakeshott would betray a source.

 

I’d have thought Hancock’s provision to her of the valuable confidential information, useful to a political “journalist” even if required to be undisclosed, sufficed as consideration for her promise not to disclose it).

 

Rob

This e-mail originates from outside One Essex Court. Please exercise caution

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.