Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
BTF1010 Bus Law CASES Week 9 - Coggle Diagram
BTF1010 Bus Law CASES Week 9
1 - Does D owe a duty of care to P?
Courts said that no duty of care owed by professionals for negligent advice causing pure economic loss...
Ultramares v Touche (p.304)
Special Relationship? - Hedley Bryne v Heller (p.307)
Special relationship and reliance...
MLC v Evatt (p.308).
Shaddock v Parramatta City Council (p.308).
Esanda Finance v PMH (p.310) – Duty of care and third parties.
2 - Has D breached the duty of care?
Foreseeable? s.48(1) Wrongs Act
Reasonable persons response> s.48(2) Wrongs Act
Professional Standard of Care
CASE: Rogers v Whitaker (p. 316)
CASE: SKM Industries v. Australian Reliance [p.313].
3 - Has P suffered damages?
CAUSATION ("but for" test) - Was the dame caused by the breach?
Wrongs Act s51(1)(a)
Causation not established - Richtoll v WW Lawyers [p.321].
REMOTENESS: Is damage too remote?
s.51(1)(b)
4 - Are there any defences?
Wrongs Act ss59-60 (p.319 CACL 14.660)
Peer professional opinion
Defence failed = Cam & Bear v McGoldrick
Mules v Ferguson (p.320).
Other Legal Actions.
Examples under ACL
s.18
s.60