JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23, 24, 26, 27, 30 April 2018 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14-17, 21-25, 28, 30, 31 May 2018 4, 7, 8, 12-15, 27, 28 June 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 May 2019 (Rev 1 (4/6/19) – minor typographical errors)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Roo Roofing Pty Ltd & Anor v The Commonwealth of Australia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 331

---

NEGLIGENCE — Duty of care — Novel duty —Whether Commonwealth Government owed duty to businesses in a section of the economy to avoid economic harm to them when designing, implementing or administering government economic policy — Exercise by Commonwealth Government of executive power in the interests of good governance of Australia — Pure economic loss — Impact on core governmental functions — Supervening policy considerations — Conflicting duties — Consideration of salient factors — Foreseeability, vulnerability, knowledge — No duty owed.

NEGLIGENCE — Negligent misstatement — Announcement of government policy — Whether duty to take reasonable care in making announcements or to correct statements previously made — Whether reasonable reliance on announcements possible — Whether actual reliance.

TRADE PRACTICES — Whether design, implementation and administration of government policy constituted carrying on a business — Whether such conduct was in trade or commerce —Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 2A, 52.

CONTRACTS — Nature of agreement created by documents defining eligibility for participation for subsidy in Home Insulation Program — No contract of the type alleged — Repudiation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Delany QC with Dr C Button, Ms C Van Proctor and Mr R Chaile	ACA Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms R M Doyle SC with Ms R L Enbom, Mr L T Brown and Mr J Hooper	Australian Government Solicitors Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2

The parties...................................................................................................................................... 2
The evidence.................................................................................................................................. 2

Findings of fact................................................................................................................................... 2

The Global Financial Crisis......................................................................................................... 2
The Australian response to the GFC.......................................................................................... 2
The design of the HIP — overview............................................................................................ 2
Preparatory work for the HIP...................................................................................................... 2
Choosing the initial model for the HIP — the Regional Model............................................ 2
The roll-out term for the Regional Model................................................................................. 2
Early implementation of the HIP................................................................................................ 2
Regulatory context........................................................................................................................ 2
Engagement with industry participants.................................................................................... 2
Phase 1 of the HIP......................................................................................................................... 2
The 1 July start date...................................................................................................................... 2
Knowledge and identification of risks...................................................................................... 2
A change in the model — the Direct Model.............................................................................. 2
The Project Control Group.......................................................................................................... 2
The need for proper installer training....................................................................................... 2
Phase 2 of the HIP......................................................................................................................... 2
HIP Guidelines Version 2............................................................................................................ 2
Rollout of the HIP......................................................................................................................... 2
Exhaustion of HIP funds.............................................................................................................. 2
Suspension of the HIP.................................................................................................................. 2

Impact of the HIP............................................................................................................................... 2

Choice of laws..................................................................................................................................... 2

Submissions................................................................................................................................... 2
Principles........................................................................................................................................ 2

Duty of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Roo Roofing Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia [2019] VSC 331
Case: [2019] VSC 331
Decision Date: 31 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered the case of Roo Roofing Pty Ltd against the Commonwealth, where the plaintiff alleged that the government owed a duty of care to businesses to avoid economic harm when designing, implementing, or administering economic policy. The plaintiff also alleged negligent misstatement and breach of contract regarding the Home Insulation Program. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the government owed a duty of care, whether there was negligent misstatement, and the nature of the agreement regarding the Home Insulation Program.

The central legal issues were whether the government owed a duty of care to businesses to avoid economic harm when exercising its executive powers, whether there was a duty to take reasonable care in making policy announcements, and whether the government's actions constituted carrying on a business under the Trade Practices Act. The court also had to consider whether the documents defining eligibility for the Home Insulation Program constituted a contract and whether there was a repudiation of such a contract.

The court held that the government did not owe a duty of care to businesses to avoid economic harm when exercising its executive powers. The court found that while the government exercised its powers in good faith, the exercise of such powers did not give rise to a duty of care. The court also found that there was no duty to take reasonable care in making policy announcements, as reasonable reliance on such announcements was not possible. Additionally, the court held that the design, implementation, and administration of government policy did not constitute carrying on a business under the Trade Practices Act. Lastly, the court determined that the documents defining eligibility for the Home Insulation Program did not constitute a contract, and there was no repudiation of any such contract.

The court made a declaration that the Commonwealth did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages in negligence and awarded costs to the Commonwealth.

Orders