Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation

Murphy (the applicant) brought proceedings against Westpac Banking Corporation (the respondent) in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged breach of its duty of care to the applicant, a customer, in relation to certain financial advice provided by the respondent's employees. The applicant claimed that the advice led to significant financial losses.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the applicant in relation to the provision of financial advice, and if so, the scope and content of that duty. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent's employees, in their dealings with the applicant, acted in a manner that gave rise to a legally enforceable obligation to provide advice with reasonable skill and care, and whether the respondent was vicariously liable for any breach of such a duty.

The High Court, in its judgment, considered the principles governing the existence and scope of a duty of care in the context of financial advice. It examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, the reliance placed by the applicant on the respondent's expertise, and the foreseeability of harm. The court applied established common law principles relating to negligence and vicarious liability, assessing whether the conduct of the respondent's employees met the required standard of care. The court ultimately found that the respondent did not owe the applicant the duty of care alleged, and therefore, there was no breach.

The High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.