R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 335

R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [No 2] [2005] NSWSC 335

Plaintiff's loss was not caused by statements made by NSWAg through Dr Salmon, as reliance was unreasonable; no breach of duty was established, and plaintiff failed to prove loss. NSWAg owed no duty of care as alleged, given context was policy rather than operational matters.

Parties
Plaintiff: R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant: State of New South Wales; Second Defendant: Deniliquin and Moulamein Rural Lands Protection Board; Third Defendant: Dan Salmon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Retrial Following Remittal by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Judgment for Defendants.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Causation, Damages
Tort Law Administrative Law Negligence Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Causation Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.T. & Y.E. Falls Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

State of New South Wales

First Defendant

Deniliquin and Moulamein Rural Lands Protection Board

Second Defendant

Dan Salmon

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Retrial Following Remittal by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether NSW Department of Agriculture (NSWAg) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to warn of impending changes of policy
  2. 2 Whether negligent misstatement or breach of duty caused plaintiff's economic loss
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff proved its loss in absence of witnesses with direct knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's loss was not caused by statements made by NSWAg through Dr Salmon, as reliance was unreasonable; no breach of duty was established, and plaintiff failed to prove loss. NSWAg owed no duty of care as alleged, given context was policy rather than operational matters.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendants on the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim. Costs to be determined after argument.