Tort of Negligence: Wollongong Council and Peter

COMMERCIAL LAW
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

Issue 1
The first issue is to determine if Wollongong Council owes a duty to care towards Peter or
not as this is one of the key elements to prove the tort of negligence.
Law 1
In order to determine if a duty to care exists or not, the neighbour test ought to be used which
has been outlined in the famous Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 case. As per this case,
a duty to care is owed to all the neighbours. A neighbour may be defined as any entity that
can be adversely impacted on account of the decision to take action or decide against acting
by the action doer.The critical element is that there should be reasonable chances of the other
party suffering damage or the damage should be foreseeable (Davenport and Parker, 2014).
Application 1
In the given scenario, when purchasing the block of land, Peter (a real estate developer)
obtained the certificate from the Wollongong Council in order to ensure that there are no
upcoming projects which can adversely impact his plans of developing apartments on the
land block. It is evident that Peter can be adversely impacted and this is foreseeable for the
Council at the time of issuing the certificate. Considering that the act of issuing an incorrect
certificate can impact a real estate developer, hence there is presence of duty to care on the
part of the
Conclusion 1
A duty to care does exist on the part of Wollongong Council directed towards Peter.
Issue 2
Another issue is whether there has been a breach of duty to care by Wollongong Council
based on their conduct towards Peter.
Rule 2
It is imperative that reasonable measures must be taken by the party bestowed with duty to
care. These would refer to the actions which any reasonable person under the given scenario
or circumstances would take so as to ensure there is no harm to the neighbour or potential

plaintiff. This has been highlighted in Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467 case
(Pendleton and Vickery, 2015).
Application 2
In the given scenario, it is apparent that Wollongong Council has breached the duty to care
that they owed to Peter considering the fact that while issuing the certificate they failed to
highlight the road widening proposal which was in place. It is reasonable to expect that
before the certificate being issued, the same should have been verified so that complete and
accurate information was presented. However, the council failed to take this measure which a
reasonable person would undertake in the situation presented.
Conclusion 2
There has been a breach of duty by Wollongong Council as it failed to take reasonable
measure to cross- verify the certificate before issuing the same.
Issue 3
Another issue is for Peter to prove that the losses suffered by him are not too remote and are
directly attributed to the actions of Wollongong Council.
Rule 3
An imperative element of tort of negligence is that the plaintiff should have suffered losses
and the same is attributed to the action or inaction of the defendant. As highlighted in Re
Polemis & Furness Withy & Company ltd. [1921]3 KB 560 case, the damage not being
remote can be established from the fact that the plaintiff would not have suffered to the same
extent if the defendant had not breached the duty to care (Latimer, 2016).
Application 3
In the given situation, damage in the form of economic loss has been suffered by Peter. This
is because a significant portion of the plot would be taken by the council for road widening. It
is apparent that this economic damage suffered by Peter is not too remote considering the fact
that if the certificate had mentioned about the road widening, then Peter would not have
suffered any economic loss.