Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-11-10|Before: McMurdo P, McPherson and Thomas JJASeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
McMurdo P, McPherson and Thomas JJASeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
Catchwords
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
– DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
–
PARTICULAR CASES – AFFECTING PARTICULAR PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS –
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE– DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE–PARTICULAR CASES – AFFECTING PARTICULAR PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS –Valuers - where the price of a contractwas to be determined by the average oftwo valuations to be performed by valuers who were not parties to the contract– whetherthe valuers could be held liable for negligenceTORTS– NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – WHEREECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL LOSS – CARELESS ACTSOR OMISSIONSTORTS– NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY –whether the conduct of the plaintiff had contributedto the resultinglossAPPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES– EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – whether damages assessedby thetrial judge were excessiveTORTS – NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENTOF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES – GENERALLYINTEREST – RATE OF
INTEREST AND COMPOUND INTEREST – RATE IN OTHER CASES – whether the
trial judge’s assessment
of interest was correctSupreme Court
Act 1995 (Qld), s 47
Arenson v Arenson [1977] AC 405, followed
Bily v Arthur Young & Co (1992) 834 P 2d 745,
distinguishedBT Australia Ltd v Raine & Horne Pty
Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 221, consideredBushwall Properties Ltd v Vortex
Properties Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1649, considered
Cann v Willson (1888) 39 Ch D 39, considered
Colbert v Beard [1992] 2 Qd R 67, consideredCredit
Alliance v Arthur Anderson & Co (1985) 483 NE 3d 110,
consideredEsanda Finance Corporation Limited v Peat Marwick Hungerfords
(1997) 188 CLR 241, considered
Finnegan v Allen [1943] KB 425, distinguishedGlanzer
v Shepard (1922) 233 NY 236
135 NE 275, followedGollin & Co Ltd
v Karenlee Nominees Pty Ltd (1983) 153 CLR 155, distinguishedGould v
Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215, considered
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15
(1991) 172 CLR 60, appliedHedley
Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1963] UKHL 4
[1964] AC 465, applied
Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159, considered
Holt v Cox [1997] NSWSC 144
(1997) 23 ACSR 590, considered
Jenkins v Betham [1855] EngR 179
(1855) 15 CB 168, consideredKemp v
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1952) 69 WN (NSW) 328,
distinguishedKenny & Good Pty Ltd v MQICA (1992) Ltd [1999] HCA 25
(1999) 73
ALJR 901, followedLegal and General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty
consideredSerisier Investments Pty Limited v English
[1989] 1 Qd R 678, followedUltramares Corporation v Touche (1931) 174
NE 441, consideredWilliams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd
[1998] UKHL 17
[1998] 1 WLR 830, distinguishedWylie v The ANI Corporation Limited
[2000] QCA 314, Appeal No 4092 of 1999, 4 August 2000, considered
Judgment (30 paragraphs)
[1]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE - PARTICULAR CASES - AFFECTING PARTICULAR PROFESSIONS OR OCCUPATIONS - Valuers - where the price of a contract was to be determined by the average of two valuations to be performed by valuers who were not parties to the contract - whether the valuers could be held liable for negligence
[2]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - WHERE ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL LOSS - CARELESS ACTS OR OMISSIONS
[3]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - GENERALLY - whether the conduct of the plaintiff had contributed to the resulting loss
[4]
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES - whether damages assessed by the trial judge were excessive
[5]
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES - GENERALLY
[6]
INTEREST - RATE OF INTEREST AND COMPOUND INTEREST - RATE IN OTHER CASES - whether the trial judge's assessment of interest was correct