Hypothetical Questions on Negligent Misstatement and Australian Consumer Law

Hypothetical questions
1

Introduction
Among other countries across the globe Australia is one of them where there are no written
statutory provisions or constitutional charters which can provide a complete security of the rights
of the citizens. With the help of common law essential human rights are preserved and protected
except those rights which are legally forbidden. The two basic sources of law in Australia are the
statute law and the common law. In order to deal with the day to day disputes and happenings in
the society the court of law has to apply these common laws and principles to adjudicate the
disputes and render decisions which are at par with these laws.
In this assignment hypothetical questions have been answered relating to various issues using the
framework of issue, law, application and conclusion (ILAC). The legislations or rules that would
be followed while answering the questions includes Australian consumer law and the law of
negligence/ negligence misstatements
2

Part A
Advise Bruno and Maria whether they are able to take action against the Brisbane city
council for negligent misstatement. Consider both the common law and the civil liability
Act 2003 (Qld) in your answer.
Issue: In this present case study provided, there has been an allegation regarding the negligent
mismanagement on the part of Brisbane city council against the plaintiffs that is Bruno and
Maria.
Law: the rules and legislations that needs to be followed in order to address the issue is the
common law regarding negligent misstatements and the remedies awarded along with the
application of the Civil Liability Act 2003 under part 3 in order to assess the claims for damages
put forwarded.1
The previously determined cases by the court of law regarding the issue of negligent
misstatement as a cause of action include one of the land mark judgments in:
Case examples:
Hedley Byrne & co. vs. Heller & Partners
Mutual life & citizens assurance co Ltd. Vs . Evatt
Sans Sebastian Pty Ltd Vs. Minister administering the environmental planning and
assessment act 1979.
1 Schultz, Travis. "Future economic loss claims: Clipping the wings of'restitutio in
integrum'." Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 140 (2017): 34.
3

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd Vs. Peat Marwick hungerfords
Application
In the present case, Bruno and Maria purchased a business of a bakery on the 11 December 2017
with a condition of a seven days period cooling off within which the above mentioned parties
could decide whether they are willing to proceed further with the contract. Within this span of
time the couple went through news in the Westside times which stated that there was a planning
going on by the Brisbane city council for the establishment of a light rail line through Rock lea.
In order to be confirmed about the same, the couples emailed the Brisbane city council in order
to collect the information regarding the route that will followed by the council to build the line as
they were concerned that if the rail line passes through Ipsich road Rocklea then there would be
obstruction in the business of the bakery. The Brisbane city council wrote a letter with a
certificate to the couples stating that the light rail route would not be passing through ipswich
road. The document declaring the same was signed by the senior planning officer. The decision
formerly taken by the council was changed which was not been informed in the letter sent by the
senior planning officer. With the information that was being provided in the letter the couples
decided to proceed with the operation of the bakery. Later on when the construction of the light
rail was started the bakery became inaccessible as a result of which the business of the bakery
suffered a huge loss. Hence in order to get compensated for the same Bruno and Maria can bring
an action against the Brisbane city council for negligent misstatement under the common law.
As stated in the common law negligent misstatement is the act of stating a false statement
unintentionally and carelessly by a person having knowledge and expertise in the same to some
other person. There is an existence of an implied duty of care on the part of the person who is
4