Hasard & Hasard

In *Hasard & Hasard*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a party had breached their duty of care to another by failing to disclose certain information during property settlement negotiations. The dispute arose from a property transaction where one party alleged the other had failed to disclose material facts that would have influenced their decision to proceed with the purchase on the agreed terms.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the context of pre-contractual negotiations for the sale of property, and if so, whether that duty had been breached by the non-disclosure of specific information. The Court had to consider the scope of duties that arise in such circumstances and the threshold for establishing a breach of the duty of care.

Brown J found that while a general duty of care can exist in pre-contractual negotiations, it is not automatically imposed in every situation. The Court applied principles of negligence, considering whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's non-disclosure would cause harm to the plaintiff, and whether there was a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties to warrant the imposition of such a duty. The Court concluded that in this particular instance, the nature of the information and the relationship between the parties did not give rise to a duty of care that was breached by the non-disclosure.

The Court therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim.