Hine v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2009] FCA 1242

Hine v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2009] FCA 1242

The directions prohibiting CPR Property as a subcontractor were not misleading or deceptive; the Department acted lawfully within its contractual rights; no duty of care was owed to the applicants; no negligent misstatement was made; and the respondents did not induce breach of contract.

Parties
First Applicant: Robert Hine; Second Applicant: CPR Property Pty Ltd (ACN 100 407 341); First Respondent: New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation; Second Respondent: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Liability Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Inducing Breach of Contract, Pure Economic Loss
Trade Practices Tort Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Inducing Breach of Contract Pure Economic Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hine

First Applicant

CPR Property Pty Ltd (ACN 100 407 341)

Second Applicant

New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation

First Respondent

State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the directions prohibiting CPR Property as subcontractor constituted misleading and deceptive conduct under s 42 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Department owed a duty of care to the applicants when issuing directions under clause 16 of the contract
  3. 3 Whether negligent misstatement occurred in issuing the directions

Ratio Decidendi

The directions prohibiting CPR Property as a subcontractor were not misleading or deceptive; the Department acted lawfully within its contractual rights; no duty of care was owed to the applicants; no negligent misstatement was made; and the respondents did not induce breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The further amended application filed 30 October 2007 be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, as agreed or taxed.