47 That having been said, however, it is also significant that Dr Back was aware that the information he was providing to the plaintiff would be of critical importance in the plaintiff's decision making process as to whether or not to buy and upgrade the pontoon. In Shaddock v Parramatta City Council [1981] HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225, the High Court of Australia dealt with a case in which a solicitor made inquiries of a municipal council as to whether land, a client was going to purchase, was subject to any road widening proposals. The solicitor was told that no such proposals were in existence. In fact, proposals affecting the land had been approved by the council and the time of the inquiry. In that case, inquiries were made both orally to an officer of the defendant council and by way of a form submitted to the council under the relevant provision of the Local Government Act. The High Court, comprising Gibbs CJ, Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Aickin JJ held that the failure to mention the road widening proposals on the written certificate was erroneous and in breach of duty. The court also held that the council owed no duty of care to the purchasers in responding to the telephone inquiry, where the information was given by an unidentified person and was not confirmed.