High Court of Australia – 28 October 1981
FACTS
Shaddock wanted to purchase property located in the area governed by the council. Shaddock’s solicitor both orally and by a written standard form, asked the council whether the property was the subject of any proposals to widen roads.
The council carelessly said there were no proposals when in fact there were such proposals. The value of the property was reduced by the proposal.
The appellants claimed that they had sustained loss by reason of their reliance on erroneous information supplied to them innocently but negligently by the respondent. The trial judge found that the respondent had been careless but that it owed no relevant duty of care to the appellants. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on appeal to the High Court.
ISSUE
The court had to decide the circumstances in which a local government body could be held liable for information it supplied to the general public.
…Doyles Arbitration Lawyers provides the Arbwatch, a regular newsletter, highlighting new and important developments and cases in Arbitration law.
The subject matter focusses on the Australian jurisdiction, however we also regularly highlight international arbitral cases of import or interest.
We respect your privacy. Sign up below, it’s free and you can unsubscribe at any time:
