Answer To: Page 1 XXXXXXXXXXKaplan Business School Assessment Outline Assessment 2 Information Subject Code:...
Debbani answered on Sep 17 2021
Tortious liability
Tortious liability negligence
Table of Contents
Issue 2
Rule of Law 2
Application and Analysis 2
Conclusion 5
References 6
Issue
Whether P can sue WC for the negligent action giving rise to economic loss
Rule of Law
Pure economic loss under the Law of Negligence is considered as the financial damage which is suffered by one party based on the negligent act so done by another party and is not necessarily accompanied by any damage to any physical or property.
Application and Analysis
In the instant facts of the case, Peter (P) being the real estate developer wanted to build a large apartment on the block, which was denied by Wollongong Council (WC) based on the proposal to widen the road thereby reducing the value of P’s land. Again, WC did not disclose the matter before P purchased the land. P based on the above mistake by WC wants to sue the later for economic loss, where WC contends differently.
In the above scenario, the plaintiff P being the estate developer suffered no physical injury and neither any damage is caused to the property, but the loss is definitely sustained by P, so in here the loss so suffered by P concerns only the pure economic loss, and is entirely based on the negligence on the part of the defendant that is in here WC. Again, to establish the negligence, the Law prescribes certain criteria to be fulfilled, firstly there must be a duty owed as was held in case of (Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, 1980), secondly that owed duty must have been breached as was held in decisions of (Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil, 2000), (Strong v Woolworths, 2012) and (Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem, 2009), thirdly the breach is the only cause or the reason for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. So, in these circumstances where the facts which gives rise to lack of physical injury or that of the property damage, then the requirement is pretty much more than just foreseeability or proximity as was held in (Overseas Tankership Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering CO Ltd , 1966) which was established in case of (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2), 1966), is often looked in to for establishing the negligence on the part of the tort feasor. In here the most concerning issue is the interdeterminacy which is explained in case of...