Negligence and Duty of Care in Wollongong Council Case

COMMERCIAL LAW

1
ISSUE NO. 1
Whether a duty of care is owed by Wollongong Council?
RULE NO. 1
A duty of care is referred to a moral or legal obligation which is imposed on a party to
ensure that he/she maintains the safety or well-being of others. In a suit for negligence, it is
important that the defendant must owe a duty towards the plaintiff. Donoghue v Stevenson
(1932) AC 532 case can be referred in order to assess whether a party owes a duty or not. In
this case, the court provided neighbour test which provides two elements for establishing a
duty. Firstly, the parties must be in a proximity relationship. Secondly, the injury or risk of
negligence of must foreseeable (Jones, 2017).
APPLICATION NO. 1
For holding Wollongong Council liable to pay damages, it is important that Peter proves that
it owes a duty of care. Both the parties are in a proximity relationship since the council
manages future projects in the area which can affect the investments of parties. The risk or
injury of negligence by the council is also foreseeable since it adversely affects the interest
of investors. Therefore, the duty of care is owed by the council to maintain a standard to
avoid causing harm to third parties.
CONCLUSION NO. 1
To conclude, a duty of care is owed by Wollongong Council.

2
ISSUE NO. 2
Did the actions of Wollongong Council breach its duty of care?
RULE NO. 2
A party can be held liable in a suit for negligence if they failed to act in a reasonable manner
to protect the safety of others. A party who owes a duty of care has to ensure that a
standard is maintained which is expected for a reasonable person in a particular situation.
The judgement of Bolton v Stone [1951] UKHL 2 can be referred to understand this point. In
this case, the court provided that duty is violated if the person who owes the duty did not
act in a reasonable manner in relation to ensures the safety of others (Monaghan, 2015).
APPLICATION NO. 2
A duty was owed by Wollongong Council based on which it was expected from the council
to maintain a standard to ensure safety of third parties. This standard was not maintained
by the council since it failed to include relevant information in the certificate which is
referred by investors before purchasing property in the area. It is expected for a reasonable
person that they would include relevant data in the certificate to avoid damages suffered by
third parties based on which the council violated its duty.
CONCLUSION NO. 2
To conclude, Wollongong council has breached its duty of care.