Chan v Acres

The case of Chan v Acres involved the plaintiffs, Chan, who had purchased a house that had been defectively renovated by the vendor, Acres. The first defendant, Acres, was the vendor. The case also involved a third defendant, an engineer who had been engaged by Acres to conduct inspections, and a fourth defendant, the local council, which had acted as Principal Certifying Authority. The dispute was heard in a court in Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the engineer and the council owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs under common law and whether such duties, if owed, were breached, leading to the plaintiffs' loss. In addressing these issues, the court considered the principles of vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, known reliance, and reasonable foreseeability. The court found that the engineer did not owe a duty of care as there was no evidence of assumption of responsibility or known reliance, and the plaintiffs were somewhat able to protect themselves. Conversely, the council owed a duty of care due to the assumption of responsibility, known reliance, and the inability of the plaintiffs to verify the quality of construction by other means. The court concluded that the council's breach of duty caused the plaintiffs' loss.

The court ruled that the engineer did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs as there was no evidence of assumption of responsibility or known reliance. Additionally, the plaintiffs were somewhat able to protect themselves, which diminished their vulnerability. Therefore, no duty of care was owed by the engineer, and even if one had been, there was no causation. The council, however, did owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs, as there was clear assumption of responsibility, known reliance, and the plaintiffs' inability to verify the quality of construction by other means made them vulnerable. The council's breach of duty also caused the plaintiffs' loss.

The final orders of the court required the council to bear the cost of the plaintiffs' loss. The court apportioned responsibility based on the differing levels of culpability between the vendor and the council. The vendor had no reason to think the contractors were incompetent, whereas the council's culpability was serious. The court's decision reflected the differing levels of negligence and the statutory obligations of the parties involved.