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