Woolcock Street Investments Case Analysis
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515
Table of Contents
1.00 Overview of Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG 3 Pty Ltd
2.00 The Outcome of the Case 4
2.10 Vulnerability 5
3.00 The Elements of Negligence 6
3.10 Duty of Care 6
3.20 Breach of Duty of Care 7
3.30 Causation 7
3.40 Remoteness of Damages 7
4.00 Statutory changes to Common Law Negligence (in NSW) 8
5.00 Development of negligence in Australia following 8 Bryan v Maloney
6.00 How the decision of Woolcock will impact on building 9 professionally
7.00 References 11
1.00 Overview of Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd
In 1987, the trustee of a property trust employed CDG Pty Ltd (the first respondent) to design the foundations of a commercial building. The second respondent was a civil engineer employed by the first respondent and was its project manager in relation to the complex’s design and construction.
Some years after the buildings completion it was sold by the then trustee of the property trust to the appellant Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd in 1992. Substantial structural defects became manifest more than a year after purchasing the property as a result of the materials below the building. The appellant claimed the buildings distress was a result of the respondents CDG Pty Ltd’s negligent design of the footings of the building and failure to take appropriate soil
Table of Contents
1.00 Overview of Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG 3 Pty Ltd
2.00 The Outcome of the Case 4
2.10 Vulnerability 5
3.00 The Elements of Negligence 6
3.10 Duty of Care 6
3.20 Breach of Duty of Care 7
3.30 Causation 7
3.40 Remoteness of Damages 7
4.00 Statutory changes to Common Law Negligence (in NSW) 8
5.00 Development of negligence in Australia following 8 Bryan v Maloney
6.00 How the decision of Woolcock will impact on building 9 professionally
7.00 References 11
1.00 Overview of Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd
In 1987, the trustee of a property trust employed CDG Pty Ltd (the first respondent) to design the foundations of a commercial building. The second respondent was a civil engineer employed by the first respondent and was its project manager in relation to the complex’s design and construction.
Some years after the buildings completion it was sold by the then trustee of the property trust to the appellant Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd in 1992. Substantial structural defects became manifest more than a year after purchasing the property as a result of the materials below the building. The appellant claimed the buildings distress was a result of the respondents CDG Pty Ltd’s negligent design of the footings of the building and failure to take appropriate soil
References: 2.10 Vulnerability As a result of the judgement made during the ‘Perre v Apande case (1999) 198 CLR 180’, the factor of vulnerability became important when assessing whether the respondents owed a duty of care to the appellant