Fairfield City Council v Pisano

Fairfield City Council applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a dispute with Francesco Antonio Pisano. The core of the disagreement revolved around a certificate issued by the Council under section 317A of the *Local Government Act 1919* (NSW). The respondents, as purchasers of a property, suffered damage due to subsidence in a house constructed on the property. The Council was the financially substantial defendant, and the respondents' cause of action against it was based on the allegedly negligent issuance of the section 317A certificate.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the terms of section 317A of the *Local Government Act* were capable of giving rise to a cause of action in negligence in favour of persons who relied on a certificate issued negligently under that provision. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the Council, in issuing the certificate, owed a duty of care to persons such as the respondents, whom it knew or ought to have known would rely upon it, and whether the primary judge's finding of negligence was sustainable. The Council's contention was that the purpose of the statute was solely to protect local authorities from actions by bona fide purchasers for value, and nothing more.

The primary judge had found that the Council, in issuing the section 317A certificate, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in relation to persons like the respondents who would rely on the certificate. The negligence found to exist involved the Council issuing the certificate of compliance knowing that the respondents would rely upon it, yet failing to ensure the accuracy of the matters certified. The High Court was considering whether this was a case of recovery for breach of statutory duty or for negligence, as described in *Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council*.