Tepko Pty Ltd & Ors v Water Board [1999] NSWCA 40

Tepko Pty Ltd & Ors v Water Board [1999] NSWCA 40

(Majority) The Water Board did not owe a duty of care to the appellants regarding the cost estimate for water connection, as there was insufficient proximity, no intention to induce reliance, and no control or vulnerability such as to establish a duty; the relationship was not such that reasonable foreseeability of economic loss alone sufficed. (Dissent) The Board owed a duty of care due to its knowledge the estimate would be communicated to, and relied upon by, the appellants for serious business purposes; its inaccurate estimate without a reasonable basis constituted a breach of that duty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['negligent Misstatement' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'duty of Care' 'pure Economic Loss' 'liability for Negligent Information or Advice' 'reliance' 'inducement' 'foreseeability' 'control' 'vulnerability']
['tort Law' 'administrative Law'] ['negligent Misstatement' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'duty of Care' 'pure Economic Loss' 'liability for Negligent Information or Advice' 'reliance' 'inducement' 'foreseeability' 'control' 'vulnerability']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Water Board owed a duty of care to the appellants in providing cost estimates for water connection' "Whether the Water Board's conduct constituted negligent misstatement or misfeasance in public office" "Whether the Board's estimate was deliberately or negligently overstated and constituted a breach of duty"]

Ratio Decidendi

(Majority) The Water Board did not owe a duty of care to the appellants regarding the cost estimate for water connection, as there was insufficient proximity, no intention to induce reliance, and no control or vulnerability such as to establish a duty; the relationship was not such that reasonable foreseeability of economic loss alone sufficed. (Dissent) The Board owed a duty of care due to its knowledge the estimate would be communicated to, and relied upon by, the appellants for serious business purposes; its inaccurate estimate without a reasonable basis constituted a breach of that duty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']