Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1)  HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225 (28 October 1981)
Transcript of Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1)  HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225 (28 October 1981)
Negligence – Damages
High Court of Australia
Gibbs C.j.(1), Stephen(2), Mason(3), Murphy(4) and Aickin(5)
Alexander ( Shiyu Yin)
Alina (Hui WU) The plaintiffs : Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd.
The defendant: Parramatta City Council
Overview of Material Facts 1.Whether Parramatta City Council own Duty of care to Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd
2.Whether the Damage on negligent misrepresentation exist or not? Key Legal Issues Duty of care=Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care
A. Control test: An assumption of responsibility(Defendant ) and/or reasonable reliance(Plaintiff).
B. Reasonable Man Test (In the Plaintiff 's position hold the fact of reliance reasonable)
C. Awareness (Defendant must know or have reason to know of that fact of the reliance) Relevant legal principles (Defendant)Expert in Business or Profession &Special Skill???
Hedley Byrne Doctrine (Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd  )
‘Special relationship’ in negligent misstatement
Not limited to Fiduciary /Contractual relationship
involve some element of Reliance Application of legal principles 1.Telephone Inquire: No Duty of care
It would not be reasonable for the Plaintiff to have relied on an unconfirmed answer given by an unidentified person in response to an inquiry made over the telephone.
2.Formal Written Inquire: Duty of care exist
A reasonable man in Mr. Carroll's position would, take the council to be giving him to understand that there were no proposals.
The Council alone possessed the store of information concerned with property dealings in the district. (As authority & administrative ) Application of legal principles Wrong Statement , withholding the information& cause Economic Loss to the other.
3. Damage on negligent misrepresentation :
Road widening proposal approved by the council is inevitably contradictory to the land redevelopment for Shaddock &Associates Pty Ltd
4.The measure of the damages that is recoverable for the negligence misrepresentation is the amount necessary to restore the Plaintiff to the position before the statement. Application of legal principles Conclusion Reference 1.Whether Parramatta City Council own Duty of care to Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd
2.Whether the Damage on negligent misrepresentation exist or not? Previous case regarding"Duty of care" Decision(HC)
1.The Defendant owed duty of care to the Plaintiff.
2.Assess damages as to liability should be reversed amount of $173,938