Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T02:51:03.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shaddock (L) & Associates PTY LTD and Another v Parramatta City Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Graeme E J Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Note
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 95 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1981) 36 ALR 385; (1981) 55 ALJR 713. High Court of Australia; Gibbs CJ, Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

2 [1964] AC 465.

3 (1970) 122 CLR 628.

4 (1981) 36 ALR 385.

5 [1978] 38 LGRA 23, 32-33.

6 [1964] AC 465.

7 (1970) 122 CLR 628.

8 [1978] 38 LORA 23, 41-42.

9 Ibid 41.

10 [1979] 1 NSWLR 566.

11 (1981) 36 ALR 385. Four judgments were delivered. Aickin J agreed with the judgment of Mason J.

12 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 393 per Gibbs CJ, 395 per Stephen J, 407 per Mason J, 409 per Murphy J. See also [1979] 1 NSWLR 566, 591 per Hutley JA.

13 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 395 per Stephen J, 409 per Murphy J.

14 Eg Howard Marine v Ogden & Sons [1978) QB 574; and Gravells, N P, “Negligent Misrepresentation: A Restrictive Approach” (1978) 94 LQR 334, 338Google Scholar.

15 [1979) 1 NSWLR 566, 592.

16 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 388-389 per Gibbs CJ, 395-396 per Stephen J, 402 per Mason J; [1979) 1 NSWLR 566, 582-583 per Moffitt P, 595-596 per Mahoney JA.

17 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 388.

18 Ibid 402 per Mason J.

19 Ibid 387 per Gibbs CJ, 395-396 per Stephen J, 401 per Mason J.

20 Eg Cane, P, “The Metes and Bounds of Hedley Byrne” (1981) 55 AU 862, 868-869Google Scholar; Argy Trading v Lapid Developments [1977) 1 WLR 444, 459-460; Tracy v Atkins (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 46, 54; Lietzke (Installations) Pty Ltd v EMJ Morgan (1973) 5 SASR 88, 99 per Bray CJ. For the related question of whether advice or information must be “requested”: Town of the Pas v Porky Packers Ltd (1976) 65 DLR (3d) 1, 10; MLC v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556, 573 per Barwick CJ.

21 The terms have been used conjunctively in many cases, but this is not to say that when so used they are being treated as synonymous: eg Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964) AC 465, 482 per Lord Reid; Essa Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801, 820 per Lord Denning MR; Presser v Caldwell [1971) 2 NSWLR 471,490 per Mason JA.

22 This question is relevant also to the “skill” limitation suggested in Evatt's case, below p 98, for as pointed out by Gibbs CJ, (1981) 36 ALR 385, 391, the giving of advice will always involve the exercise of skill whereas the provision of information may not necessarily do so.

23 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 390-391 per Gibbs CJ, 398 per Stephen J, 405 per Mason J.

24 Eg MLC v Evatt (1970) 122 CLR 628, 633-634, (1968) 122 CLR 556, 573 per Barwick CJ; Shaddock v Parramatta City Council [1979) 1 NSWLR 566, 574 per Moffitt P; Jenkins v Godfrey Hirst (1974) 3 NSWDCR 214, 221 per Redapple DCJ; cf Presser v Caldwell [1971) 2 NSWLR 471, 491-492 per Mason JA; contra MLC v evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556, 591 per Taylor J. There are also cases in which a duty has been held to be owed though the mis-statement seems only to involve mis-information: eg Windsor Motors v District of Powell River (1969) 4 DLR (3d) 155 (a list of addresses); Esso Petroleum v Mardon [19761 QB 801 (throughput of service-station); Howard Marine v Ogden [1978) QB 574 (capacity of barge); Jenkins v Godfrey Hirst (1974) 3 NSWDCR 214 (code name for carpet); Coats Patons (Retail) Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1971) 69 LGR 356 (no proposals for building subway).

25 So much so that one author said the case had “led people out into the wilderness and left them there”-R Stevens, “Hedley Byrne v Heller: Judicial Creativity and Doctrinal Possibility” (1964) 27 Mod L Rev 121, 141.

26 [1964) AC 465, 484 per Lord Reid.

27 Eg Stevens, L L, ''Two Steps Forward and Three Back! Liability for Negligent Words” (1972) 5 NZ Universities L Rev 39, 45-47Google Scholar; Lindgren, K E, “Professional Negligence in words and the Privy Council” (1972) 46 ALJ 176, 181Google Scholar; Bradbury, PL, “In Memory of Hedley Byrne” (1971) New Zealand Law Journal 203, 208Google Scholar; Rickford, J B K, “A Mirage in the Wilderness: Hedley Byrne Considered” (1971) 34 Mod L Rev 328, 332Google Scholar; Howard Marine v Ogden [1978] QB 574, 591 per Lord Denning MR, 600 per Shaw U; Essa Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801, 827 per Ormrod U; Box v Midland Bank [1919] 2 Lloyd's Rep 391, 399 per Lloyd J.

28 (1970) 122 CLR 628, 633, 637-638.

29 Jbid 642.

30 Ibid 646.

31 Above p 98.

32 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 392.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid 396-397.

35 Ibid 398-399. Stephen J thought that the council had exercised skill and compe- tence in any case.

36 Ibid 397-398.

37 (1970) 122 CLR 628, 635-636.

38 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 403.

39 [1968] 122 CLR 556,572.

40 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 404.

41 Ibid 404-405. See also Glasbeek, , “Negligent Mis-statements in the Privy Council-Area of Liability Clearly Delimited” (1972) 50 Canadian Bar Review 128, 135Google Scholar; Symmons, C R, “The Duty of Care in Negligence: Recently Expressed Policy Elements” (1971) 34 Mod L Rev 394, 539-540CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Ibid 404.

43 Eg Ministry of Housing v Sharp [1970] 2 QB 223, 265-266; SCM v Whittall [1970] 3 WLR 694, 700.

44 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 409.

45 Ibid.

46 [1970] 2 QB 223.

47 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 392.

48 Ibid 397, 399. There are also English and Australian authorities to this effect: eg Coats Patons (Retail) Ltd v Birmingham Corporation (1971) 69 LGR 356; Hull v Canterbury Municipal Council [1974] 1 NSWLR 300; GJ Knight Holdings v Warringah Shire Council [1975] 2 NSWLR 796; Johnson v State of South Australia (1981) 26 SASR 1.

49 Ibid 406.

50 [19791 1 NSWLR 566, 605-606.

51 Hayes, R, “The Duty of Care and Liability for Purely Economic Loss” (1979) 12 Melb UL Rev 79,118Google Scholar.

52 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 406.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid 393.

55 [19701 2 QB 223.

56 Eg Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465, 529 per Lord Devlin.

57 For an analysis of the latter: Seddon, N, 'The Negligence Liability of Statutory Bodies: Dutton Reinterpreted” (1978) 9 FL Rev 326Google Scholar.

58 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 405 per Mason J.

59 Eg Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801; McNally v Welltrade [1978] IRLR 497.

60 Mcinerney v Lloyds Bank [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep 246, 253 per Lord Denning MR.

61 (1981) 36 ALR 385, compare 389 per Gibbs CJ with 404 per Mason J. See also Presser v Caldwell [1971] 2 NSWLR 471.

62 For an examination of the authorities on this other question see: Fridman, G H L, “Negligent Misrepresentation: A Postscript” (1976) 22 McGill Law Journal 649, 652Google Scholar; Cane, P, “The Metes and Bounds of Hedley Byrne” (1981) 55 AU 862, 871Google Scholar.

63 (1968) 122 CLR 556, 570.

64 (1981) 36 ALR 385, 406.

65 Seddon, N C, “Fault Without Liability-Exemption Clauses in Torts” (1981) 551 ALJ 22, 32-33.Google Scholar

66 See Shaddock v Parramatta City Council [1979] 1 NSWLR 566, 577-578 per Moffitt P; P L Bradbury, “In Memory of Hedley Byrne” (1971) New Zealand Law Journal 203, 208.

67 (1970) 122 CLR 628, 642. At least two interpretations have been given, neither being satisfactory; Phegan, C S, “Hedley Byrne v Heller in the Privy Council-The Continuing Story” (1971) 45 AU 20, 28Google Scholar.

68 In an editorial comment in the Australian Law Journal, (1982) 56 ALJ 55 Shaddock is said to have “made a radical extension of the 'bounds' of Hedley Byrne”. It is said to be “a clear case of judicial legislation” (at 56). In the, present writer's opinion the decision is a legitimate development within the framework of the law as expressed in Hedley Byrne, and by the High Court in MLC v Evatt. It conforms with the law as it existed in England as long ago as 1964.