Wollongong Council has a duty of care towards Peter

0
Commercial Law

1
Issue 1
Whether Wollongong Council has a duty of care towards Peter?
Rule 1
The tort of negligence focuses on protecting an individual, property and economic interest of
a party from damages which are caused because another person failed to take reasonable care.
A person is only liable for negligence if such person owes another party a duty for ensuring
proper care and breach of which resulted in causing damages. A good example was given in
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case in which the plaintiff gets sick after drinking
from a bottle in which decomposed remains of a snail were present. The court held a duty is
owed to customers and the defendant is liable for breaching such duty (Harpwood, 2009).
Lord Bridge provided “Caparo test” in order to determine whether someone has a duty in
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 case. There are three elements in this
case which judge a person’s duty of case: proximity relationship, reasonable reason and
reasonable foreseeability to impose such duty.
Application 1
Wollongong Council owes a duty to care towards people who purchase property or land in
the Wollongong local area. The council has a duty to include the future proposal in the
certificate to avoid economic loss of people. Wollongong Council has proximity relationship
with people who make purchasing decisions based on its certificate; therefore, the council
owes a duty of care to Peter.
Conclusion 1
In conclusion, Wollongong Council owes Peter a duty of care because a proximity
relationship exists between parties.

2
Issue 2
Whether duty of care was breached by Wollongong Council due to not meeting standard of
care?
Rule 2
In case a party failed to meet appropriate standards which resulted in causing damages to
another party, then it is considered breaching of duty for ensuring proper care. In Paris v
Stepney Borough Council [1950] UKHL 3 case, the court held that breach of duty occurs
when a person fails to take precautions that would be reasonable for a prudent person to take
(Greene, 2013).
Application 2
Wollongong Council did not include the information about road widening project in their
certificate even when they have a duty of care to ensure that complete information is included
in the certificate. As a reasonable person, they should have included such information to
avoid people from misguiding.
Conclusion 2
Therefore, Wollongong Council has breached the duty of care by not take precautionary
measures to provide complete information to people.