L Shaddock & Associates case v Parramatta City Council
I’ll be presenting the case: L Shaddock & Associates case v Parramatta City Council. First, I’ll provide a brief summary of situation that resulted in the court case, followed by the case itself, which brings up issues of duty of care and negligent mis-statement, and concluding with the judgement that was passed.
The CASE:
Shaddock proposed to purchase a property for the purpose of redevelopment. A telephone inquiry made by Mr Carroll, Shaddock’s solicitor, as to whether there was any local road widening proposal, was answered in negative. A written application lodged with the Council, for various certificates, AND an request for an indication of any such proposal, returned with no reference made, so Shaddock entered into a contract to purpose the property.
However after the settlement of the property, part of the land was subsumed by the Council, for road widening purposes, and Shaddock sued Parramatta City Council for damages of negligent misstatement, breach of duty and care and liability for providing erroneous information.
DUTY OF CARE:
This case brings to light, issues of duty and care associated with liability of providing negligent mis-statement. To establish whether there was indeed a duty of care or not, 3 criteria must be satisfied. These are:
The advice is of business or serious nature
Defendant should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on advice
Reasonable in circumstances for plaintiff to rely on defendant’s advice
In reference to judgement passed in another case: Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co. Ltd:
The majority view held was that, duty of care is cast only on a person who carries on a business or profession which involves giving of advice of a kind which calls for special skill and competence, or let it be known he claims to possess skill and competence. In this case, it was argued that there was a difference in giving of advice and the giving of information, where the later, would not necessarily require an
The CASE:
Shaddock proposed to purchase a property for the purpose of redevelopment. A telephone inquiry made by Mr Carroll, Shaddock’s solicitor, as to whether there was any local road widening proposal, was answered in negative. A written application lodged with the Council, for various certificates, AND an request for an indication of any such proposal, returned with no reference made, so Shaddock entered into a contract to purpose the property.
However after the settlement of the property, part of the land was subsumed by the Council, for road widening purposes, and Shaddock sued Parramatta City Council for damages of negligent misstatement, breach of duty and care and liability for providing erroneous information.
DUTY OF CARE:
This case brings to light, issues of duty and care associated with liability of providing negligent mis-statement. To establish whether there was indeed a duty of care or not, 3 criteria must be satisfied. These are:
The advice is of business or serious nature
Defendant should have known that the plaintiff intended to rely on advice
Reasonable in circumstances for plaintiff to rely on defendant’s advice
In reference to judgement passed in another case: Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co. Ltd:
The majority view held was that, duty of care is cast only on a person who carries on a business or profession which involves giving of advice of a kind which calls for special skill and competence, or let it be known he claims to possess skill and competence. In this case, it was argued that there was a difference in giving of advice and the giving of information, where the later, would not necessarily require an