BTF1010 Bus Law CASES Week 9

1 - Does D owe a duty of care to P?

2 - Has D breached the duty of care?

3 - Has P suffered damages?

4 - Are there any defences?

Other Legal Actions.

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.
  • 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].

CAUSATION ("but for" test) - Was the dame caused by the breach?

Wrongs Act s51(1)(a)

REMOTENESS: Is damage too remote?

s.51(1)(b)

Causation not established - Richtoll v WW Lawyers [p.321].

Wrongs Act ss59-60 (p.319 CACL 14.660)

Peer professional opinion

  • Defence failed = Cam & Bear v McGoldrick
  • Mules v Ferguson (p.320).

Examples under ACL

  • s.18
  • s.60